ArticleBMJ open2024
Views and opinions of patients with glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration on vision home-monitoring: a UK-based focus group study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Anterior Segment Photography in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Evaluating the ease of use and clinical applicability of the Melbourne Rapid Field for visual field testing: A real-world experience.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The Amsler Grid in Everyday Practice: A Review of Its Role and Limitations in Primary Care.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Article
- Telemonitoring Tools for Glaucoma Patients: A Systematic Review of Current Trends and Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the views, hopes and concerns of patients living with glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) regarding vision home-monitoring.
designQualitative 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 analysed.
settingUniversity meeting rooms in London, UK.
participantsEight people with glaucoma (five women, median age 74) and seven people with AMD (four women, median age 77) volunteered through two UK-based charities. Participants were excluded if they did not self-report a diagnosis of glaucoma or AMD or if they lived further than a 1-hour travel distance from the university (to ensure minimal travel burden on participants).
resultsSix 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 to keep up with requisite technologies; and potential anxiety from seeing worrying results. Most devices were scored highly for usability, though several practical improvements were suggested.
conclusionPatients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma/AMD expect vision home-monitoring to be beneficial, but have significant concerns about its potential implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.