Aim The current study aimed to evaluate the knowledge of eye disease and awareness of eye care among the Saudi adults and to explore existing eye-related misconceptions in the community. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in Riyadh city during May and June 2016. A self-administered anonymous online questionnaire was used to explore the most common misconceptions related to eye diseases and eye care. Results Out of 1000 individuals, only 711 (71.1%) participant responses were received. The participants' acceptable knowledge (score ≥50%) was high about the eye problem in diabetes (88.6%), ocular trauma (81.2%), and other general eye diseases (91.3%), whereas low about refractive errors (63%), pediatric eye problems (51.5%), and glaucoma (14.8%). The variation in knowledge about specific ocular morbidities was significant (p < 0.001). The majority of participants reported sources of information about the common eye diseases and eye care encountered from the community, internet-based resources, and social media. Conclusions The majority of the participants had awareness about the common eye diseases, whereas low percentage of participant's awareness about specific condition of eye diseases. Public eye health awareness should be more focused on social media and the internet to be able to cover the younger individuals of the community.

Background The levels of knowledge, attitude and practice among primary physicians concerning both diabetic retinopathy screening and treatment of sight threatening diabetic retinopathy have been studied by different groups, such as medical students, pharmacists, Primary Health Care staff and opticians. In some studies, the levels were very high, while in others it was noted to be less than desired. Aim This study’s intent is to estimate and improve level of Knowledge (K), Attitude (A) and Practice (P) among non-ophthalmic health care providers regarding eye management of diabetes and barriers that people with diabetes face in Saudi Arabia. Methods This cross-sectional survey targeted medical doctors (except ophthalmologists) working at private sector institutions in Riyadh. They were interviewed using closed-ended questions for knowledge (8), attitude (5), practice (5), and reasons for their current KAP status comprised of 8 questions. The level of Knowledge was assessed as good if its score was (> 50%); positive attitude (> 50%) and excellent practice (> 75%) were estimated and associated to the risk factors. Results Out of the 355 participants that were interviewed, the percentages of good knowledge, positive attitude and excellent practice concerning diabetic retinopathy (DR)were 193 [54.3% (95% CI 49.2–59.5)], 111 [31.3% (95% CI 26.4–36.1)], and 145 [40.8% (95% CI 35.7–46.0) participants, respectively. Gender, place of work and type of doctor were not significantly associated with the level of KAP. Salient reasons for low KAP status included a busy schedule (54.6%), less resources (75.2%), inadequate periodic training in eye care (69%), and absence of retinal evaluation training (49.6%). Conclusions Improving KAP level is urgently needed. Addressing underlying causes of low KAP could enhance eye care of people with diabetes. Additionally, training for primary health care providers for early detection of DR and timely management of sight threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) is necessary.

Background Generally, complementary and alternative therapies (CAT) are accepted methods of treatment by patients with various types of conditions. Their use is becoming especially prevalent among patients with eye problems even in developed countries. Thus, we aimed to determine the pattern of use of CAT in this patient population, to identify the patient characteristics associated with the use of CAT, and to assess the types of CAT used. Methods A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in Palestine at An-Najah National University Hospital between the time periods of October 2019 to May 2020, using questionnaire-based face to face interviews. Data were collected through convenience sampling. Patients responded to the questionnaire, which was focused on information adapted from previous research in this area, covering socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, types of CAT, source of information, and side effects on CAT use. Results A total of 86 patients were interviewed for our study. Over two thirds, 67% reported using CAT for the specific purpose of improving their eye condition, and about one third (29.1%) received more than one therapy. The most common therapies reported were duea’ (i.e. supplication) (47.1%) and herbal therapies (24.1%). It was shown that patients with bilateral involvement of their eyes were almost twice more likely to describe using CAT than patients with unilateral eye pathology (p = 0.006). Also, patients who underwent surgery as their route of treatment were significantly less likely to use CAT (p = 0.043). Most of our study participants mentioned a non-physician source as their source of information regarding CAT with family members being the most frequently mentioned (30.2%) followed by the internet (25.6%) and friends (19.8%). Conclusions The prevalence of CAT use among patients with eye disease is somewhat high in our study population. Because CAT may trigger adverse reactions, influence the progression of the disease, and interfere with conventional treatment, the ophthalmologist should frequently be asked patients with such diagnostics regarding the use of these therapies. Further work is required to analyze the mechanisms of action and to establish realistic guidelines for the use of these modalities.

PURPOSE: To present the level of knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) for glaucoma management and their determinants among adult Saudi patients. METHODS: The study was conducted between January and June 2017. Glaucoma patients from the ophthalmology clinic were interviewed. Demographics and disease-related information were noted. The questionnaire included four K questions, seven A questions, and six P squestions. The correct response of questions were summed for K, A, and P, and the percentile was calculated. K and P scores were graded as excellent (more than >75%), good (51%–75%), poor (26%–50%), and very poor (≤25%). If A score was >50%, it was termed as positive. RESULTS: We interviewed 263 adult glaucoma patients. Their mean age was 61.6 ± 14.2 years. The excellent grade of knowledge about glaucoma and its management was 63 (24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8–29.1]). Poor grade of knowledge was 95 (36.1% [95% CI 30.3–41.9]). The attitude toward glaucoma and its management was positive in 89 (33.8% [95% CI 28.1–39.6]). The practice to manage glaucoma was of excellent grade in 10 (3.8% [95% CI 1.5-6.1]). The overall excellent grade of KAP glaucoma patients was 17.9% (13.2–22.5). Good practice for glaucoma management was associated with a history of glaucoma surgery ( P < 0.001), longer duration of glaucoma ( P = 0.02), and young age ( P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Low KAP about glaucoma disease and medication among Saudi glaucoma patients is a matter of concern. Strategies are needed to improve the KAP of glaucoma patients.