Objective: To investigate the views, hopes, and concerns of patients living with glaucoma and AMD regarding vision home-monitoring. Design: Qualitative study using focus groups and questionnaires. Participants were given three disease-relevant home-monitoring tests to try. The tests consisted of three visual field tests for the glaucoma groups (Melbourne Rapid Fields, Eyecatcher, Visual Fields Fast) and three acuity and/or contrast-sensitivity tests for AMD groups (AllEye, PopCSF, Spotchecks). Focus group data were thematically analyzed. Setting: University meeting rooms in London, UK. Participants: Eight people with glaucoma (5 female, median age 74) and seven people with AMD (4 female, median age 77) volunteered through two UK based charities. Participants were excluded if they did not self-report a diagnosis of glaucoma or AMD and if they lived further than a one-hour travel distance from the University (to ensure minimal travel burden on participants). Results: Six themes emerged from focus groups, the two most frequently referenced being: ‘concerns about home-monitoring’ and ‘patient and practitioner access to results’. Overall, participants believed home-monitoring could provide patients with a greater sense of control, but also expressed concerns, including: the possibility of home-monitoring replacing face-to-face appointments; the burden placed on clinicians by the need to process additional data; struggles keeping up with requisite technologies; and potential anxiety from seeing worrying results. Most devices were scored highly for usability, though several practical improvements were suggested. Conclusion: Patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma and AMD expect vision home-monitoring to be beneficial, but have significant concerns about its potential implementation.Objective: To investigate the views, hopes, and concerns of patients living with glaucoma and AMD regarding vision home-monitoring. Design: Qualitative study using focus groups and questionnaires. Participants were given three disease-relevant home-monitoring tests to try. The tests consisted of three visual field tests for the glaucoma groups (Melbourne Rapid Fields, Eyecatcher, Visual Fields Fast) and three acuity and/or contrast-sensitivity tests for AMD groups (AllEye, PopCSF, Spotchecks). Focus group data were thematically analyzed. Setting: University meeting rooms in London, UK. Participants: Eight people with glaucoma (5 female, median age 74) and seven people with AMD (4 female, median age 77) volunteered through two UK based charities. Participants were excluded if they did not self-report a diagnosis of glaucoma or AMD and if they lived further than a one-hour travel distance from the University (to ensure minimal travel burden on participants). Results: Six themes emerged from focus groups, the two most frequently referenced being: ‘concerns about home-monitoring’ and ‘patient and practitioner access to results’. Overall, participants believed home-monitoring could provide patients with a greater sense of control, but also expressed concerns, including: the possibility of home-monitoring replacing face-to-face appointments; the burden placed on clinicians by the need to process additional data; struggles keeping up with requisite technologies; and potential anxiety from seeing worrying results. Most devices were scored highly for usability, though several practical improvements were suggested. Conclusion: Patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma and AMD expect vision home-monitoring to be beneficial, but have significant concerns about its potential implementation.
Fifteen people with established diagnoses of glaucoma (N=8) or AMD (N=7) participated in focus groups at City, University of London. The present focus group study used a positivist, qualitative study approach, featuring semi-structured topic guides, and facilitated by two of the authors. Participants were given 3 example home-monitoring technologies to try (though no actual clinical data were collected) and were asked to provide feedback during the focus group discussions.
