Introduction Glaucoma is a lifelong condition often requiring surgical intervention. To allow us to inform patients’ expectations of surgery effectively, it is important to understand patients’ preferences and concerns regarding outcomes from glaucoma treatments including surgery.
Aims To explore what clinical and social outcomes of glaucoma surgery are important to patients.
Methods Forty-five glaucoma patients undergoing medical glaucoma treatments or surgery were recruited for focus group interviews to determine their opinions regarding the outcomes of glaucoma treatments. Thematic analysis was performed with NVivo software.
Results Themes identified were understanding glaucoma, understanding surgery treatments and understanding treatment outcomes. The most important outcomes of the glaucoma surgery reported by the patients were social factors. Patients felt that being able to maintain their driving licence is a strong indicator of successful glaucoma treatment/surgery. Other important outcomes were independent living, ability to care for their family and having a good-quality social life. When considering novel surgical treatments, most patients felt that certainty of successful outcome and proven longevity of the effect are the primary motivators for choosing these treatments.
Conclusions Patients understood that clinical measures were surrogates for maintaining visual function, but ability to maintain independent living was the most important outcome from their treatment. For newer treatments patients wished to know more about long-term outcomes when considering this option.
- field of vision
- treatment surgery
- intraocular pressure
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors BBK was the principal investigator and facilitator of the focus group study and was involved in recruiting and consenting the patients for the study. BBK transcribed and analysed the data on NVivo and prepared the manuscript. PL was a facilitator of the focus group discussions and advised on data analysis and troubleshooting NVivo software application of the qualitative data, and reviewed the manuscript. AJK conceived the study and had supervisory role, and overlooked the administration and financial aspect of the project. BBK, PL and AJK participated in its design. BBK submitted the project proposal to REC Midlands for ethics approval. BBK created a draft of the manuscript, and AJK and PL helped in editing and reviewing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the International Glaucoma Association (IGA) (grant number 17GOY001).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the REC West Midlands (REC reference number: 16/WM/0172).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.