PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Eye Protective Devices”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 523 records · Page 29Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

What do adult squash players think about protective eyewear?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of adult squash players towards protective eyewear. METHODS: A survey of 197 competition and social squash players from seven squash centres in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne, Australia was conducted in September to October 1995. Information about participation in squash, previous injuries, use of protective eyewear, barriers towards eyewear use, and attitudes towards protective eyewear was obtained by a self report questionnaire. RESULTS: Squash is a popular sport in Australia. Of the players surveyed, 6% played in junior competitions, 67% in senior competitions, and 27% were social players. Most had been playing for more than ten years. Some 15% of players had previously suffered an eye injury, most commonly caused by a racquet. Less than 10% of players reported that they wore protective eyewear when they played squash, and 35% of these wore prescriptive lenses which they considered to be protective. The major reason for not wearing protective eyewear was the perception that it was unnecessary. Poor vision and a lack of comfort were also stated as reasons by a significant number of players. More than half (57%) of the respondents agreed that more players should wear protective eyewear, yet only 16% thought it should be compulsory for all players. There was considerable support for protective eyewear use by junior players, however. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of protective eyewear use is low among competition and social squash players in Melbourne. The major areas that need to be addressed are the ignorance of the need for protective eyewear among social and experienced players and the mistaken belief that prescription lenses provide adequate protection on a squash court.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Have the attitudes of Australian squash players towards protective eyewear changed over the past decade?

OBJECTIVE: To assess indicative trends in the use of protective eyewear by Australian squash players and their attitudes towards its use since 1989. METHODS: Data were extracted from three Australian surveys of squash players conducted in 1989, 1995, and 2000. Responses to directly similar attitudinal questions relating to protective eyewear use from each survey were compared. The proportion of players giving each response was calculated for each survey, along with 95% confidence intervals for the differences between the 2000 survey and those from the earlier surveys. RESULTS: Self reported use of protective eyewear ranged from 10.0% in 1989, to 8.6% in 1995, and 18.8% in 2000. However, only 8.9% of the players surveyed in 2000 actually wore appropriate standards approved/polycarbonate lens eyewear. This can be compared with 8.0% and 2.0% of players who reported wearing appropriate polycarbonate lens eyewear in the 1989 and 1995 surveys respectively. Compared with the 1995 survey, significantly more players in 2000 believed that more players should wear protective eyewear (95% confidence interval (CI) for difference 1 to 18). A significantly higher proportion of players also supported the compulsory use of protective eyewear by juniors in 2000 than in both 1989 (95% CI for difference 6 to 24) and 1995 (95% CI for difference 5 to 22). No other attitudes had significantly changed over the decade. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that self reported use of protective eyewear has probably increased over the past decade. However, many players report wearing inappropriate eyewear. A transition from positive attitudes to appropriate eyewear behaviours is required before mandatory protective eyewear use can be effectively introduced.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Operating practices of and precautions taken by orthopaedic surgeons to avoid infection with HIV and hepatitis B virus during surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the precautions being taken by orthopaedic surgeons to avoid becoming infected with HIV or hepatitis B virus by their patients during surgery. DESIGN: Pilot study of 50 surgeons selected at random followed by a postal questionnaire completed anonymously. SUBJECTS: All 1220 fellows and associates of the British Orthopaedic Association working in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: 800 (67%) Questionnaires were returned. 511 Surgeons has sustained a needlestick injury or had got body fluid in their eye within the past month despite 430 regularly wearing eye protection during major surgery. Seven had definitely and four possibly been infected with hepatitis B virus by a patient while operating, and 582 had been immunised against hepatitis B. Only 75 surgeons were satisfied with the present guidelines on testing patients for HIV antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Although most surgeons who replied took some precautions when operating, most still exposed themselves to considerable risk from patients not known to be infected with HIV or hepatitis B virus.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗
PubMed1991

Ocular trauma: one in the eye for safety glasses.

Over a 3-month-period, a prospective study was performed on patients presenting with eye injuries to an Accident and Emergency Department. Two hundred and forty-five patients presented, representing 3.7% of total new patients seen in that period. The majority of injuries (81%) occurred in the workplace, injuries associated with grinding (32%) being the commonest. Retained foreign body (52%) was the most common injury. Eye protection was provided in 64% of cases, but only used in 48.5% of these. Seventy-eight per cent of cases were discharged without follow-up. The use of goggles appeared to provide the greatest degree of protection.

Emergency Service, Hospital↗
PubMed1997

Light reduction and the electroretinogram of preterm infants.

AIMS: To examine the effects of light on retinal development and function in preterm infants as measured by the electroretinogram (ERG). Secondary outcomes included visual acuity testing, the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity, and general wellbeing, reflected in feeding tolerance, rate of weight gain, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: Eligibility criteria for enrollment were birthweight < or = 1250 g and gestational age < or = 31 weeks. Sixty one infants were randomly allocated by 6 hours after birth to a control or treatment group which wore 97% light filtering goggles for a minimum of four weeks or until the infant reached 31 weeks postmenstrual age. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in the numbers of electroretinograms performed at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. Although the sample size was not large enough to exclude clinically important differences in secondary outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the groups in visual acuity testing at 4-6 months corrected age, incidence of retinopathy of prematurity, weight gain, or length of stay. CONCLUSION: These data support the safety and feasibility of this intervention. A much larger study will be needed to determine whether light reduction to the eyes of very low birthweight infants will reduce the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity or enhance general well-being.

Electroretinography↗