Jennifer Long

Risk factors for physical discomfort in Australian optometrists.

Purpose. There are anecdotal reports that optometrists suffer work-related physical discomfort but no published reports to support this. Methods. An on-line questionnaire was sent by e-mail to ∼1700 Australian optometrists. Participants were asked if they experienced work-related discomfort in any of eight nominated body regions, the type and severity of discomfort, self-reported work-related factors contributing to the discomfort, and demographic and work-related information. Results. Four hundred sixteen optometrists participated in the questionnaire. Work-related physical discomfort was reported by 82% of respondents. The most common sites of discomfort were neck, shoulder, and lower back. Univariate analysis revealed that females are more likely to report discomfort than males (p = 0.001) and more likely to report a higher number of discomfort sites (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis revealed that females have up to a 6.6× [confidence interval (CI) = 2.2–19.9] greater risk of reporting discomfort in individual body locations compared with males and a higher risk of experiencing severe discomfort (discomfort present for >30 days) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.0, CI = 1.7 to 5.5]. A greater number of eye examinations per day increased the risk of reporting work-related discomfort by up to 5.1× (CI = 2.1 to 12.7). Being self-employed and being older than 40 years both appear to be protective factors for work-related discomfort. The risk of experiencing severe discomfort is increased by performing repetitive tasks (OR = 1.9, CI = 1.2 to 3.1) and by continuing to work while injured (OR = 2.9, CI = 1.6 to 5.2). Eliminating both these factors would reduce the disease load for severe discomfort by 28%. Conclusions. Females, young optometrists, and those conducting a high number of consultations daily have a higher risk of experiencing work-related physical discomfort. Performing repetitive tasks and continuing to work while injured increases the risk of severe discomfort. The results of this investigation have important implications for the longevity of the optometry workforce.

A multidisciplinary approach to solving computer related vision problems

Citation information: Long J & Helland M. A multidisciplinary approach to solving computer related vision problems. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012, 32, 429–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‐1313.2012.00911.x

Color vision and the railways: Part 1. The Railway LED Lantern Test

Purpose Lantern tests and practical tests are often used in the assessment of prospective railway employees. The lantern tests rarely embody the actual colors used in signaling on the railways. Practical tests have a number of problems, most notably consistency of application and practicability. This work was carried out to provide the Railway LED Lantern Test (RLLT) as a validated method of assessing the color vision of railway workers. Methods The RLLT, a simulated practical test using the same LEDs (light-emitting diodes) as are used in modern railway signals, was developed. It was tested on 46 color vision–normal (CVN) and 37 color vision–deficient (CVD) subjects. A modified prototype was then tested on 106 CVN subjects. Results All 106 CVN subjects and most mildly affected CVD subjects passed the modified lantern at 3 m. At 6 m, 1 of the 106 normal color vision subjects failed by missing a single red light. All the CVD subjects failed. The RLLT carried out at 3 m allowed mildly affected CVD subjects to pass and demonstrate adequate color vision for the less demanding railway tasks. Carried out at 6 m, it essentially reinforced normal color vision as the standard. Conclusions The RLLT is a simply administered test that has a direct link to the actual visual task of the rail worker. The RLLT lantern has been adopted as an approved test in the Australian National Standard for Health Assessment of Rail Safety Workers in place of a practical test. It has the potential to be a valid part of any railway color vision standard.

How do Australian optometrists manage work‐related physical discomfort?

Background:  Work‐related physical discomfort exists within the optometric profession. It is not well understood how optometrists manage this issue in their workplaces.

Hospitalised eye injuries in New South Wales, Australia

Purpose: This is the first population-based descriptive study of hospitalised eye injuries in New South Wales (NSW), Australia that also estimates the cost of these injures to the health system. The purpose is to describe the inci- dence and cause of hospitalised eye injuries in NSW from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2005. Method: Hospitalised eye injuries in NSW were obtained from information recorded in the NSW Admitted Patients Data Collection and were identified using relevant International Classification of Disease, version 10 Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) codes pertaining to eye injury. Results: The annual rate of hospitalised eye injuries for NSW residents was 25.5 per 100,000 population. Males had higher rates of hospitalisation than females and males 20-24 years and females aged 85 years or over had the highest rates of hospitalisation for each gender. Injuries of the eye and orbit were the most common type of injury (40.8%) and inter- personal violence was the most common type of injury mechanism (27.4%). The home was the most common specified location of the incident and eye injuries were identified as work-related in 9.8% of cases. Conclusions: Eye injuries are an important cause of hospitalised injury in NSW. Preventive approaches to ocular trauma should be promoted to populations identified at risk.

Viewing distance and eyestrain symptoms with prolonged viewing of smartphones

This paper investigates viewing distances and eyestrain symptoms in young adults reading from a smartphone for 60 minutes.

Forging partnerships between optometrists and ergonomists to improve visual comfort and productivity in the workplace

Ergonomists and optometrists often have mutual clients/patients with complex visual needs in the workplace but communication between the professionals is usually indirect through the client/patient. This paper describes a joint professional development meeting between optometrists and ergonomists in Canberra, Australia, which included a discussion to explore how to improve communication between the two professions. Optometrists and ergonomists reported they would prefer more information before conducting assessments and providing advice. Vision screening forms commonly in use for computer workers were viewed as inadequate to meet these needs. Communication between the two professions was hampered by absence of contact details of the optometrist/ergonomist, perceptions that the other profession is too busy to talk, privacy considerations in sharing information and funding issues for shared care arrangements. There are opportunities for increasing awareness of good vision in workplaces. Communication between optometrists and ergonomists can be improved by developing information-sharing documents relevant to modern workplaces.

Personal consequences of work‐related physical discomfort: an exploratory study

Work‐related physical discomfort has been reported in Australian optometrists. The purpose of this paper is to explore the personal consequences of work‐related discomfort.

Randot stereoacuity does not accurately predict ability to perform two practical tests of depth perception at a near distance.

Purpose. It is common practice to administer stereopsis tests such as the Randot Stereotest to prospective employees for occupations requiring depth perception. However, there is no evidence that stereoacuity measured with tests such as the Randot Stereotest will predict an individual’s ability to perform a depth perception task at near. Methods. Forty-eight people with normal binocular vision were tested on 2 practical depth perception tests, and their stereoacuity was measured with the Randot Stereotest. Results. There was little correlation between stereoacuity and either of the practical tasks (r < ±0.1). Conclusions. These results show that Randot stereoacuity does not reliably predict depth perception ability for people who enjoy normal binocular vision. A better method for determining depth perception ability might be to issue a practical depth perception task.

Color Vision and the Railways: Part 2. Comparison of the CN Lantern Used on the Canadian Railways and Railway LED Lantern Tests.

Purpose There are two currently available lantern tests that have their design based solely on the practices of the rail industry. These are the CN Lantern (CNLAN) used on the Canadian Railways and the Railway LED Lantern Tests (RLLT). In the same way that the signaling practices differ in the two jurisdictions, the design of the lanterns also differ. The CIE (Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage)-recommended color vision standards for transport predate both lanterns. The study was undertaken to assess the appropriateness of these lanterns in CIE Color Vision Standard 1. CIE Standard 1 is called “Normal color vision” but some very mild anomalous trichromats may pass the specified “lantern test that presents a high level of difficulty.” Methods The lantern tests were undertaken by 46 color vision–normal and 37 color vision–deficient subjects. Results Subjects made more errors on the RLLT, and the pattern of errors is different, partly because there are blank presentations in the RLLT and “no light” is an acceptable response. The two lanterns showed agreement on the pass/fail categorization of 73 of the 83 subjects. The RLLT fails more color vision–normal subjects. Conclusions Despite the different construction principles, the RLLT and CNLAN have pass/fail levels that are comparable with the Holmes-Wright Type B lantern, which is nominated in CIE Color Vision Standard 1 but is no longer commercially available. The higher failure rate of color vision–normal subjects on the RLLT has been addressed by changing the intensities of the two darkest red lights.