36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      “The patient is speaking”: discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Eye disease can be devastating. The most feared impact is sight loss, but in a number of ophthalmic conditions, there can be wide-ranging systemic, psychological, emotional and social effects of both the disease and its treatment. External tests of visual function, such as visual acuity, are inadequate to understand the overall impact of ophthalmic disease on a patient’s functional vision or daily life. This can lead to a discordance between the patient’s priorities and perspective on the one hand and the efforts of clinicians and other stakeholders on the other hand. In this review, we discuss how the patient is uniquely placed to understand the impact of the disease and can use that position to transform ophthalmic care at the individual and collective level, from research to care delivery. We highlight how the “patient voice” can contribute to key areas, including priority setting in the research agenda, communicating the wide-ranging impact of disease and its treatment as assessed through qualitative research, identifying the outcome measures that matter to the patient through core outcome set development and reporting these outcomes through appropriate patient-reported outcome measures. We also consider the increasing power of the patient voice on health institutions, ranging from broadcasting an individual’s experience of care he/she has received to patient societies influencing future health policy. Finally, we reflect on the challenges that need to be overcome for the patient voice to increasingly influence and improve the delivery of eye care in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial.

            To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab intravitreal injections to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Multicenter, noninferiority factorial trial with equal allocation to groups. The noninferiority limit was 3.5 letters. This trial is registered (ISRCTN92166560). People >50 years of age with untreated nAMD in the study eye who read ≥ 25 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. We randomized participants to 4 groups: ranibizumab or bevacizumab, given either every month (continuous) or as needed (discontinuous), with monthly review. The primary outcome is at 2 years; this paper reports a prespecified interim analysis at 1 year. The primary efficacy and safety outcome measures are distance visual acuity and arteriothrombotic events or heart failure. Other outcome measures are health-related quality of life, contrast sensitivity, near visual acuity, reading index, lesion morphology, serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, and costs. Between March 27, 2008 and October 15, 2010, we randomized and treated 610 participants. One year after randomization, the comparison between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive (bevacizumab minus ranibizumab -1.99 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.04 to 0.06). Discontinuous treatment was equivalent to continuous treatment (discontinuous minus continuous -0.35 letters; 95% CI, -2.40 to 1.70). Foveal total thickness did not differ by drug, but was 9% less with continuous treatment (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.005). Fewer participants receiving bevacizumab had an arteriothrombotic event or heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.07; P = 0.03). There was no difference between drugs in the proportion experiencing a serious systemic adverse event (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.27; P = 0.25). Serum VEGF was lower with bevacizumab (GMR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.54; P<0.0001) and higher with discontinuous treatment (GMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42; P = 0.004). Continuous and discontinuous treatment costs were £9656 and £6398 per patient per year for ranibizumab and £1654 and £1509 for bevacizumab; bevacizumab was less costly for both treatment regimens (P<0.0001). The comparison of visual acuity at 1 year between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive. Visual acuities with continuous and discontinuous treatment were equivalent. Other outcomes are consistent with the drugs and treatment regimens having similar efficacy and safety. Proprietary or commercial disclosures may be found after the references. Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              The Quality of Qualitative Research

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Ophthalmol
                Br J Ophthalmol
                bjophthalmol
                bjo
                The British Journal of Ophthalmology
                British Journal of Ophthalmology (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0007-1161
                1468-2079
                June 2017
                28 April 2017
                : 101
                : 6
                : 700-708
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Health Education England (West Midlands) , Birmingham, UK
                [2 ] Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham , Birmingham, UK
                [3 ] Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham , Birmingham, UK
                [4 ] Fight for Sight , London, UK
                [5 ] Birdshot Uveitis Society , Birmingham, UK
                [6 ] departmentDepartment of Ophthalmology , University Hospitals Birmingham NHSFT , Birmingham, UK
                [7 ] departmentAcademic Unit of Ophthalmology , Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham , Birmingham, UK
                [8 ] departmentBirmingham & Midland Eye Centre , Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust , Birmingham, UK
                [9 ] departmentCentre for Rare Diseases , Institute of Translational Medicine, Birmingham Health Partners , Birmingham, UK
                [10 ] NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology , London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Alastair K Denniston, Academic Unit of Ophthalmology, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 2TT, UK; a.denniston@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7849-0087
                Article
                bjophthalmol-2016-309955
                10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309955
                5583687
                28455280
                b58d14b0-9835-46b4-b8ac-25883dcb40d0
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 19 November 2016
                : 31 January 2017
                : 28 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Birdshot Uveitis Society;
                Categories
                Review
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                public health,vision,treatment,medical
                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                public health, vision, treatment, medical

                Comments

                Comment on this article