Advertisement

Randomised comparison of three tools for improving compliance with occlusion therapy: an educational cartoon story, a reward calendar, and an information leaflet for parents

  • A. M. Tjiam
  • G. Holtslag
  • H. M. Van Minderhout
  • B. Simonsz-Tóth
  • M. H. L. Vermeulen-Jong
  • G. J. J. M. Borsboom
  • S. E. Loudon
  • H. J. Simonsz
Pediatrics

Abstract

Background

We previously demonstrated that compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia was improved by the use of an educational programme, especially in children of parents of foreign origin and who spoke Dutch poorly. The programme consisted of: (i) a cartoon story for amblyopic children that explained without words why they should patch, (ii) a calendar with reward stickers, and (iii) an information leaflet for parents. In the current study, we assessed the individual effect of each component on compliance.

Methods

We recruited 120 3- to 6-year-old children who lived in a low socio-economic status (SES) area in The Hague and were starting occlusion therapy for the first time. They were randomised to receive one of the components (three intervention groups), or a picture to colour (control group). The randomisation was blinded for treating orthoptist and researcher. Compliance was measured electronically using the Occlusion Dose Monitor (ODM). Primary outcome was percentage of compliance (actual/prescribed occlusion time). Secondary outcome was absolute occlusion hours per day. Parental fluency in Dutch was rated on a five-point scale.

Results

Compliance could be measured electronically in 88 of the 120 children; in 32 others, it failed for various reasons. Parental fluency in Dutch was moderate or worse in 36.4 % (p = 0.327). Average compliance was 55 % standard deviation (SD) 40 (n = 18) in the control group, 89 % SD 25 in the group receiving the educational cartoon (n = 25, P = 0.002 compared with control group), 67 % SD 33 (n = 24, P = 0.301) in the reward-calendar group and 73 % SD 40 (n = 21, P = 0.119) in the parent-information-leaflet group. On average, children in the control group occluded 1:46 SD1:19 hours/day, 2:33 SD 1:18 hours/day in the group receiving the educational cartoon, 1:59 SD 1:13 hours/day in the reward-calendar group and 2:18 SD 1:13 hours/day in the parent-information-leaflet group. No child who received the cartoon story occluded less than 1 hour per day, against seven in the reward-calendar group, five in the parent-information-leaflet group and five in the control group.

Conclusions

Although all three components of the programme improved compliance with occlusion therapy in children in low-SES areas, the educational cartoon had the strongest effect, as it explained without words to a 4- to 5-year-old child why it should wear the eye patch.

Keywords

Amblyopia Patients’ compliance Intervention Randomised controlled trial 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Occlusion Dose Monitor was developed in 1996–1997 as a public domain project at the department of Medical Technical Development at Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Acknowledgement for proofreading and correcting the English edition goes to Mr. D.R.M. Alexander.

This work was supported by

ZonMW-the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [grant number: #6320.0008].

Financial Disclosure

None

Funding

None.

Competing interests

None.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was provided by Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam.

References

  1. 1.
    Groenewoud JH, Tjiam AM, Lantau VK, Hoogeveen WC, de Faber JT, Juttmann RE, de Koning HJ, Simonsz HJ (2010) Rotterdam AMblyopia Screening Effectiveness Study: detection and causes of amblyopia in a large birth cohort. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:3476–3484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Searle A, Norman P, Harrad R, Vedhara K (2002) Psychosocial and clinical determinants of compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopic children. Eye 16:150–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von GK Noorden, Campos EC (2002) Chapter 14 Examination of the patient IV: amblyopia. In: Binocular vision and ocular motility: Theory and management of strabismus. Mosby Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, pp 246–287Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Repka MX, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Birch EE, Chandler DL, Cotter SA, Hertle RW, Kraker RT, Moke PS, Quinn GE, Scheiman MM (2003) A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 121:603–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doshi NR, Rodriguez ML (2007) Amblyopia. Am Fam Physician 75:361–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Webber AL, Wood J (2005) Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects and treatment. Clin Exp Optom 88:365–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bacal DA (2004) Amblyopia treatment studies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 15:432–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loudon SE, Fronius M, Looman CW, Awan M, Simonsz B, van der Maas PJ, Simonsz HJ (2006) Predictors and a remedy for noncompliance with amblyopia therapy in children measured with the occlusion dose monitor. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:4393–4400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Awan M, Proudlock FA, Gottlob I (2005) A randomized controlled trial of unilateral strabismic and mixed amblyopia using occlusion dose monitors to record compliance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:1435–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newsham D (2000) Parental non-concordance with occlusion therapy. Br J Ophthalmol 84:957–962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedman DS, Hahn SR, Gelb L, Tan J, Shah SN, Kim EE, Zimmerman TJ, Quigley HA (2008) Doctor-patient communication, health-related beliefs, and adherence in glaucoma results from the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. Ophthalmology 115:1320–1327, 1327 e1321-1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tates K, Meeuwesen L (2001) Doctor-parent–child communication. A (re)view of the literature. Soc Sci Med 52:839–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winnick S, Lucas DO, Hartman AL, Toll D (2005) How do you improve compliance? Pediatrics 115:e718–e724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart CE, Moseley MJ, Stephens DA, Fielder AR (2004) Treatment dose–response in amblyopia therapy: the Monitored Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study (MOTAS). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3048–3054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewart CE, Fielder AR, Stephens DA, Moseley MJ (2005) Treatment of unilateral amblyopia: factors influencing visual outcome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:3152–3160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simons K, Preslan M (1999) Natural history of amblyopia untreated owing to lack of compliance. Br J Ophthalmol 83:582–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsui D (2007) Current issues in pediatric medication adherence. Paediatr Drugs 9:283–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Indinnimeo L, Bonci E, Capra L, La Grutta S, Monaco F, Paravati F, Passalacqua G, Silvestre G, Duse M (2009) Clinical effects of a Long-term Educational Program for children with asthma - Aironet. A 1-yr randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 20:654–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holzheimer L, Mohay H, Masters IB (1998) Educating young children about asthma: comparing the effectiveness of a developmentally appropriate asthma education video tape and picture book. Child Care Health Dev 24:85–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedman DS (2009) Introduction: new insights on enhancing adherence to topical glaucoma medications. Ophthalmology 116:S29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedman DS, Okeke CO, Jampel HD, Ying GS, Plyler RJ, Jiang Y, Quigley HA (2009) Risk factors for poor adherence to eyedrops in electronically monitored patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 116:1097–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okeke CO, Quigley HA, Jampel HD, Ying GS, Plyler RJ, Jiang Y, Friedman DS (2009) Interventions improve poor adherence with once daily glaucoma medications in electronically monitored patients. Ophthalmology 116:2286–2293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okeke CO, Quigley HA, Jampel HD, Ying GS, Plyler RJ, Jiang Y, Friedman DS (2009) Adherence with topical glaucoma medication monitored electronically the Travatan Dosing Aid study. Ophthalmology 116:191–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newsham D (2002) A randomised controlled trial of written information: the effect on parental non-concordance with occlusion therapy. Br J Ophthalmol 86:787–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goransson A, Dahlgren LO, Lennerstrand G (1998) Changes in conceptions of meaning, effects and treatment of amblyopia. A phenomenographic analysis of interview data from parents of amblyopic children. Patient Educ Couns 34:213–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fronius M, Chopovska Y, Nolden J, Loudon SE, Luchtenberg M, Zubcov A, Pepler L (2006) Occlusion treatment for amblyopia: assessing the performance of the electronic occlusion dose monitor. Strabismus 14:65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chopovska Y, Loudon SE, Cirina L, Zubcov A, Simonsz HJ, Luchtenberg M, Fronius M (2005) Electronic recording of occlusion treatment for amblyopia: potential of the new technology. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:539–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oto S, Pelit A, Aydin P (2002) Non-concordance in amblyopia treatment: the effective use of ‘smileys’. Strabismus 10:23–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Tjiam
    • 1
  • G. Holtslag
    • 1
  • H. M. Van Minderhout
    • 2
  • B. Simonsz-Tóth
    • 2
  • M. H. L. Vermeulen-Jong
    • 2
  • G. J. J. M. Borsboom
    • 3
  • S. E. Loudon
    • 1
  • H. J. Simonsz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyErasmus MC University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyMedical Centre HaaglandenThe Haguethe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public Health and BiostatisticsErasmus MC University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations