Both my kids (ages 11 & 13) have pretty bad vision (in the low -4's) and it's gotten progressively worse. The optometrists have always recommended that we under-prescribe since it will hopefully "force" their eyes to work - but this doesn't seem to be working - in addition to leaving our kids with difficulty seeing the board when they sit in the back. So we're rethinking this but want to understand what the recommendation is based on research.

We've looked for research to support this approach but are coming up empty and, indeed, the new approach seems to not under-correct. Any one have experience with this either way? If you do have an opinion, can you please provide some studies (or your expertise) that might support it?

I can understand the 'forcing' the eyes to work, and it won't be an instant fix. Childrens' physical characteristics as well as internal are changing all the time until they reach, say, l8 or l9, even 20. I am sure you understand that aspect of a problem like this.

Of course you won't find research to support this because you are not privy to all opthamological journals, and I assure you this is a very tight medical field and not very much available to the public. I realized this while trying to research my son's problem, until he became old enough to try himself, and we found absolutely nothing to support recommendations.

I know this doesn't necessarily answer your question or give you insight. I found a lot of brick walls in this field too.

My advice is go with the recommendations and have your children moved up closer to the board if possible.

I enrolled my son years ago in a private school with smaller classrooms to absolve the problem of not being able to see the board; of course computers took over that problem later on. He is now 29, and completely happy with his vision, no problems in school or unversity with vision problems.



Tick