METHODS: A total of 8500 self-administered questionnaires were distributed in eight selected secondary schools. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 2474 (29%) completed questionnaires were collected. The mean age of the respondents was 14.8 ± 1.5 years, and approximately 7.2% were CL wearers. The majority of the wearers were females (76.0%) and wore soft CLs (92.2%). Cosmetic purposes (58.1%) and comfort (24.6%) were the main reasons for wearing CLs. Many of the respondents purchased their lenses from optical shops (50.1%) and beauty accessory shops (15.6%), and approximately 10% did not disinfect their lenses properly. Regarding knowledge about CL care, approximately 56% of the respondents responded correctly.
CONCLUSION: Half of the respondents do not have sufficient knowledge about the risks of wearing CLs. Thus, aggressive public health education aimed at teenagers is needed to prevent improper CL usage.
METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.