|
How many volunteers were present at the Congress? : |
by invitation letter and presenting poster and lecture |
|
Delegates from which countries presented in the congress? : |
China, South Korea, Japan, India, Pakistan and etc. |
|
Were the delegates of any other organizations present in the congress? : |
Yes |
|
If yes, please write the names of the organizations in the box : |
|
|
What were the responses to your talking points? Were specific questions or concerns raised? : |
The most questions were about the lower prevalence rate of refractive errors in Iran compared with Eastern Asian countries. |
|
If you met staff members, please list their full names & positions. : |
yes, Choun-ki joo, south korea |
|
Please inform us if there are any follow up actions we need to talk with the members of the congress : |
Dr. Seyed Farzad Mohammadi:
Associate professor , eye research center- farabi eye hospital -tehran university of medical sciences.
Lecture topic: Is Screening for Glaucoma Necessary? A Policy Guide and Analysis
Elham Ashrafi:
Research Expert at eye research center- Farabi eye hospital -Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Lecture Topic: Distribution of Ophthalmologists and Optometrists at National and Provincial Levels in Iran |
|
Your experiences about the travel processes(Providing ticket, accommodation,...) : |
I with my colleagues payed travel expenses such as ticket booking, accommodation and congress participation personally. |
|
Please give a briefing of your own observations and outcomes of the congress: : |
the congress was very academic and useful about all of the ophthalmology subject specially in surgery and medical retina fore me.
I as a Ph.D. student benefited in many ways:
- Familiarity with International Congress
- Familiarity with international figures in the field of ophthalmology.
- Motivation for conducting more edge of sciences studies
- Presentation and share the results of our studies in Iran
in this congress we showed the economic burden of refractive error by their existing corrections included Spectacle, Contact lenses and Refractive Surgery such as Lazik and PRK. the final conclusion of our study was as following comments:
According to a patient perspective economic assessment, refractive surgery is highly cost-saving as compared with conventional non-surgical methods of refractive error corrections. The most costly and the least costly conventional choices then would be: SC+CL and SC+RS in one’s life course, respectively. From a health economics perspective, one may infer that refractive surgery should be considered as soon as medically and legally possible. |