I know from your rejection of wearing a plus (for years) that you will not be successful. Here is the data that suggest that
a person must understand this issue - while he can still read the 20/30 line.
I agree that the person must receive information on both how to measure his visual acuity, and his refractive status as well. With a child this is not possible. But with a mature person, who can take this responsibility, then a degree of prevention is possible. Here are the remarks of Dr. Francis Young, who conducted this effective plus-prevention study.
Otis> For me, the OD does not have “the time” to help me, with the required explanation. (The minus is so easy – and prevention requires so much from the individual – as to make prevention impossible in the context of optometry.)
Otis> I accept that ONLY prevention is possible, when I can still read the 20/40 line. Intense use of the plus – is out-of-scope for any medical person sitting in an office. I understand that it takes a wise, motivated person to follow the science of Dr. Young. This study shows that if the plus is not worn properly, the child's vision goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, for each year in school. If the plus is worn at 20/40, the indication is that the child's refraction will change "positive" by about +1/2 diopter in one year, and the child will get out of nearsightedness.
Details of “Bifocal Control of Myopia”
Author: Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Kenneth H. Oakley
In the 1975 Issue of the, “American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics”
Let me clarify. What we need to know, in a plus-group versus minus-group, what the effect was over a five year period – on the totally natural eye. (A natural eye can and does have negative and positive refractive states. With a positive state, you have 20/20 or better – if you measure it yourself.)
Since a child can not be trusted to wear “just the plus” alone, a “bifocal” was prescribed. This is not a plus-prevention study as such, but with some intelligence and wisdom on the part of the person himself – it would be perceived that prevention would be possible at 20/40 and -1.0 diopters.
Here was the protocol for children:
Young> … the parents were offered a discussion about the fitting of a “reading lens” or bifocal which would provide 3/4 to 1 diopter (D), of plus lens magnification over the minus distance prescription which was usually under-corrected by 0.5 diopter.
Young> For example if the children’s refraction indicated -1.0 diopter, the prescription would be written for a -.5 diopter with a plus 1.5 diopter add.
Otis> What this study FAILED to do – was to EXPLAIN the need and wisdom of wearing the plus “correctly”. The child, not understanding WHY he should wear a plus – simply ignores looking though it. Even with that difficult limitation, this study showed that, with motivation, long-term prevention is possible.
Otis> If you give a young man a plus – but do not tell him WHAT he is doing or WHY he is doing it, you will find that, when he puts the plus on (say a +2 for reading), and then he will LEAN FORWARD to about 13 inches. When he does this – he totally CANCELS OUT THE INTENDED, AND DESIRED EFFECT OF THE PLUS.
Otis> This would ruin the study – as a practical manner. But still, even NOT TELLING the child to “push print” (the study DID have a highly significant effect.)
This does not mean “cure”. It does not mean you can ever “prescribe it”. Further, I limit myself to those who understand these difficulties.
But this study did proven that a plus (used before you go below 20/40, and -1.0 diopters) could have a MILD “recovery effect”.
That is the reason why, for a study with intelligent, motivated pilots, you could get recovery from 20/40. But you would have to TRUST both the intelligence and motivation of each person in the study.
NOT ONE STUDY ever extended that type of trust to the person himself.
Until THAT is done, all intentional plus-prevention studies will fail.
Tragically, no OD wants to give you that type of authority and competence to work on prevention (with you in control) because if you succeed, the entire “science” that he thinks SUPPORTS a prescription – will be proven wrong.
This is why an education is necessary, for a person at -3/4 diopters, entering a four year college. If he will wear the plus (with this level of knowledge, he can get back to 0.0 diopters, and 20/20.
But he must understand this difficult issue - if he wishes to keep his 20/20 though the college years.
Obviously, self checking of your own visual acuity - is critical to this process.