↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Patient satisfaction with glaucoma therapy: reality or myth?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Patient satisfaction with glaucoma therapy: reality or myth?
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s78918
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Stolz, Hans Lemij, Juliette Hoevenaars, Cees van der Windt, Christophe BAUDOUIN

Abstract

While safe and effective treatments for glaucoma exist, their effectiveness is compromised by poor compliance. Patients who have problems with their topical glaucoma medication are acknowledged to be at higher risk for poor compliance, frequent medication switching, and surgery. Patient satisfaction with therapy and its associated benefits have until recently taken second place to efficacy. The present study is a transverse cross-sectional epidemiological survey among glaucoma patients receiving therapy with prostaglandin analogs. The primary objective was to determine and characterize patient satisfaction with glaucoma therapy, and the secondary objective was to identify factors that may contribute to poor patient satisfaction. Ophthalmologists in the Netherlands included 199 patients and 164 were analyzed. Patients were predominantly elderly with early, primary, open angle glaucoma. Eighty-nine percent of them stated they were satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment. However, signs of ocular surface disorder on ophthalmological examination were evident in 44% of patients, corneal fluorescein staining was positive in 28% of patients, and 38% of patients were using tear substitutes. The prevalence of blepharitis/meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye was more than twice as high after the commencement of therapy compared with before therapy. Univariate analysis revealed that patient dissatisfaction with their glaucoma therapy was statistically significantly (P<0.001) associated with the presence of ocular surface disease, hyperemia, ocular signs, symptoms upon and between instillation, and the use of tear substitutes. Apparently, patients in the present study are satisfied with their treatment; 89% expressed satisfaction compared with only 11% who professed dissatisfaction. The results suggest that even if local adverse events and ocular surface disease, in particular, contribute to glaucoma patient dissatisfaction, only a minority of patients expressed such dissatisfaction. At the time of the study, most (94%) of the patients included were receiving preserved preparations. Further studies should evaluate the influence of preservative on patient satisfaction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 20 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,305,492
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,155
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,140
of 279,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#24
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.