A survey on knowledge and attitude of Saudi female students toward refractive correction

Background: To assess the general knowledge and attitude of refractive error correction methods among female Saudi university students. Methods: One thousand, one hundred and sixty-five female university students, between 17 and 32 years of age were randomly interviewed using self-administered questionnaires with open and closed-ended questions. The questions collected information on demographics (gender, age, educational status, college of study, and occupation), addressed general knowledge/perception of the difference between the professions of ophthalmology and optometry, and attitudes toward spectacle, contact lens (CL) usage, including coloured prescription CLs, and refractive surgery for correcting refractive errors. Results: The response rate was 90 per cent (1,052/1,165). Fifty-two per cent had never had an eye examination and only 28 per cent correctly identified the difference between an ‘ophthalmologist’ and ‘optometrist’. Eighty-one per cent knew that CLs instead of spectacles (81.8 per cent), and coloured CLs (89.7 per cent) can be used for correcting refractive errors. Concerning refractive surgery, although a majority (90 per cent) knew that the technique corrects refractive error and reduces dependency on spectacles/CLs, only five per cent had experienced refractive surgery. Approximately, 46 per cent and 47 per cent used spectacles and CLs, respectively, and while the optometrist was the main source of CL prescriptions (41 per cent), most people visited the ophthalmologist for their eye examination (68 per cent). Surprisingly, 52 per cent had never had an eye examination, or had only had one or two eye examinations (50 per cent) in their lifetime. While 23 per cent of spectacle wearers chose to continue with spectacles at the end of the study, 64 per cent and 12 per cent preferred refractive surgery and CLs, respectively, for refractive correction. Lack of information and fear of complications, but not cost, hindered most people from uptake of CLs and refractive surgery. Conclusion: The students demonstrated high levels of knowledge and awareness of refractive correction methods, especially for refractive surgery. Although many consulted the optometrist or ophthalmologist for their eye examinations and corrective devices, many remain uncorrected and unaware of the main difference between both professions. The lack of information about correction methods and fear of complications may have affected their interest in uptake of eye services and should be addressed to increase uptake and prevent avoidable vision loss