Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2026
The Measurement and Treatment of Suppression in Amblyopia
Published on: December 14, 2012
The emotional impact of amblyopia treatment in preschool children: randomized controlled trial
S Hrisos1, M P Clarke, C M Wright
1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Insights
Amblyopia treatment, often involving patching, can distress children and parents. However, this study found no lasting negative impact on children's overall well-being or behavior.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Pediatric Medicine
- Behavioral Science
Background:
- Amblyopia, or
- lazy eye
- is a common cause of reduced vision in children.
- Effective treatment often involves patching or glasses, which can be challenging for young children and their families.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the emotional status and well-being of children undergoing active treatment for amblyopia.
- To compare parental perceptions of child behavior and treatment-related difficulties across different amblyopia treatment modalities.
Main Methods:
- A postal survey utilizing a psychometric behavioral scale was administered to parents of children enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial for unilateral visual impairment.
- Data were collected at multiple time points during the trial, assessing children's emotional status and treatment adherence.
Main Results:
- A significant proportion of parents reported difficulties with patching, with children showing more distress from patching compared to glasses alone.
- Despite treatment-related distress, parental reports indicated children were generally happy and cooperative.
- No significant differences in behavioral scores were observed between treatment groups.
Conclusions:
- Implementing amblyopia treatment, particularly patching, presents challenges and can cause temporary distress.
- The study concludes that despite short-term difficulties, amblyopia treatment does not appear to negatively impact a child's long-term global well-being or behavior.
Purpose:
To investigate the emotional status of children undergoing active treatment for amblyopia.
Design:
Postal survey, in the context of a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
Participants:
Parents of 177 children with a unilateral visual impairment referred from preschool vision screening. The children had been recruited to a randomized controlled trial of treatment for unilateral visual impairment and randomly assigned to receive either glasses with or without patches, glasses alone, or treatment deferred for 1 year.
Methods:
A self-completion questionnaire, including a psychometric behavioral scale, was sent to the parents of all children recruited to the trial at age 4 years, to 66 whose deferred treatment began at age 5 years, and finally to 151 remaining in the trial at the end of follow-up.
Main Outcome Measures:
Mean scores per treatment group on the Revised Rutter Parent Scale for Preschool Children. Comparison of parent responses to questions assessing the child's general well-being and difficulties associated with treatment.
Results:
Completed questionnaires were returned for 144 of 177 (81%) children at a mean age (standard deviation) of 48 months (5.0), for 45 of 66 (68%) at a mean age of 61 months (5.8), and for 78 of 151 (52%) at a mean age of 67 months (5.0). Most parents reported having difficulty with patching their child regardless of age (77% at age 4 years and 73% at age 5 years), with fewer reporting difficulties with glasses alone (42% and 53%, respectively). Children were significantly more upset by patching than by glasses only (chi-square test, P = 0.03 for age 4 years and P = 0.01 for age 5 years), as were the parents of 4-year-olds (chi-square test, P = 0.01). Most parents thought their children were happy, cooperative, and good tempered, and behavioral scores did not differ between treatment groups.
Conclusions:
Treatment for unilateral visual impairment is not easy to implement and is commonly associated with some degree of distress. Despite this, no impact on the child's global well-being or behavior was seen either during or after the treatment period.
