Optometrists
Newman (2012) suggests that optometrists should seriously consider the effects of the improvements made in the contact lens industry as they create vision correction plans for younger generations. In other words, optometrists are being asked to develop a more intimate relationship with both their practice and patients. The article argues that recent studies prove that this population is at no additional health risk, just as satisfied, and just as capable of caring for their lenses as other populations. The writing investigated several different studies with very diverse purposes. The author reflects on personal experiences and the results from recent studies to discuss lens options and the importance of educating the patient as optometrists
…show more content…
prepare to fit and care for the pediatric population.
Empirical studies from 2007 to 2009 and surveys conducted in 2011 researched populations familiar with the current types of vision correction available to children ranging in age from 8-17. In addition, a study of orthokeratology as an option for the correction of myopia was referenced. This is interesting because some might argue that attempting to reverse myopia in children could adversely affect the progression of a maturing visual process. A study of aphakia, determining the most appropriate correction option for infants, was also presented by the author. The study compares the visual outcomes of infants wearing contact lenses versus intraocular lens’ (IOLs). The author uses this information to address the replacing of a common practice with the author’s suggested practice. Most participants within each physiological study were of similar age, resulting in much more relevant information being provided to the target audience.
The population at large, or all children within the said age range, were not considered within the “quality of life” presentation of the information. One might argue that if stated this would take away from the writing because the children would have an irrelevant opinion on the information presented; however, the author supplements this by including relevant information, corrective vision modality choice, based ideally that children are motivated in part by their self-confidence, such as the involvement in activities or sports, and how they feel their appearance is viewed by their peers.
The sample sizes and descriptions of how samples were selected was not provide, therefore, leaving one to question the integrity of the author’s research on the topic. Readers have no way of knowing the composition of participants—race, sex, etc. Nevertheless, the research did consider many different studies with outcomes to support the ideas presented. Further research might include up-to-date information on similar studies, the amount of improvements made by current technological advances since the article’s origin, and the successes and failures of optometrists who have applied the information within the pediatric population.
The author’s writing is somewhat clear, easy to follow, and presented with a personal biased tone that adds to the argument of the optometrists’ duty to widen the scope of patients to be considered for contact lens correction. Such arguments, based on evidence that considers a diverse point of view and from a variety of stakeholders, play a vital role in the decision-making process regarding the welfare of a child made by a parent. The author’s writing is one that can be very useful to parents who are considering contact lenses as an option for vision correction for their offspring.
The word “title” was originally used to define an inscription placed on an object to denote the information about it.
Because this was most often a one-time action, the title was of the utmost importance and set the tone for what was to follow. Much in the same way, the author does an excellent job introducing the writing with the title, Children and Contact Lenses: Where Do They Fit into the Spectrum of Care? It wholly portrays the author’s purpose for the writing.
The one and only visual, a table summarizing the recent studies on children and contact lenses, is useful to the reader. It gives a clear and concise picture of the information referenced by the author, therefore, demonstrating the argument. The illustration effectively lists each study, it’s purpose, and the outcome in an alternate colored format; however, it does not include the two additional studies on orthokeratology and aphakia.
Given that the information targets multiple audiences, additional reviews by the audience of the author’s writing might convey some very different feelings about the usefulness of the information depending on which reader is reading the material. Most parents may view the information as informative and helpful while optometrists might view it as either an opportunity to expand their knowledge or just another way to add more to their
workload.
prepare to fit and care for the pediatric population.
Empirical studies from 2007 to 2009 and surveys conducted in 2011 researched populations familiar with the current types of vision correction available to children ranging in age from 8-17. In addition, a study of orthokeratology as an option for the correction of myopia was referenced. This is interesting because some might argue that attempting to reverse myopia in children could adversely affect the progression of a maturing visual process. A study of aphakia, determining the most appropriate correction option for infants, was also presented by the author. The study compares the visual outcomes of infants wearing contact lenses versus intraocular lens’ (IOLs). The author uses this information to address the replacing of a common practice with the author’s suggested practice. Most participants within each physiological study were of similar age, resulting in much more relevant information being provided to the target audience.
The population at large, or all children within the said age range, were not considered within the “quality of life” presentation of the information. One might argue that if stated this would take away from the writing because the children would have an irrelevant opinion on the information presented; however, the author supplements this by including relevant information, corrective vision modality choice, based ideally that children are motivated in part by their self-confidence, such as the involvement in activities or sports, and how they feel their appearance is viewed by their peers.
The sample sizes and descriptions of how samples were selected was not provide, therefore, leaving one to question the integrity of the author’s research on the topic. Readers have no way of knowing the composition of participants—race, sex, etc. Nevertheless, the research did consider many different studies with outcomes to support the ideas presented. Further research might include up-to-date information on similar studies, the amount of improvements made by current technological advances since the article’s origin, and the successes and failures of optometrists who have applied the information within the pediatric population.
The author’s writing is somewhat clear, easy to follow, and presented with a personal biased tone that adds to the argument of the optometrists’ duty to widen the scope of patients to be considered for contact lens correction. Such arguments, based on evidence that considers a diverse point of view and from a variety of stakeholders, play a vital role in the decision-making process regarding the welfare of a child made by a parent. The author’s writing is one that can be very useful to parents who are considering contact lenses as an option for vision correction for their offspring.
The word “title” was originally used to define an inscription placed on an object to denote the information about it.
Because this was most often a one-time action, the title was of the utmost importance and set the tone for what was to follow. Much in the same way, the author does an excellent job introducing the writing with the title, Children and Contact Lenses: Where Do They Fit into the Spectrum of Care? It wholly portrays the author’s purpose for the writing.
The one and only visual, a table summarizing the recent studies on children and contact lenses, is useful to the reader. It gives a clear and concise picture of the information referenced by the author, therefore, demonstrating the argument. The illustration effectively lists each study, it’s purpose, and the outcome in an alternate colored format; however, it does not include the two additional studies on orthokeratology and aphakia.
Given that the information targets multiple audiences, additional reviews by the audience of the author’s writing might convey some very different feelings about the usefulness of the information depending on which reader is reading the material. Most parents may view the information as informative and helpful while optometrists might view it as either an opportunity to expand their knowledge or just another way to add more to their
workload.