↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The eye drop chart: a pilot study for improving administration of and compliance with topical treatments in glaucoma patients

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 and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
The eye drop chart: a pilot study for improving administration of and compliance with topical treatments in glaucoma patients
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s82909
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Anne McVeigh, Georgios Vakros

Abstract

In order to improve patient education, compliance, and administration of eye drops prescribed for patients suffering with glaucoma within a UK ophthalmology department, an eye drop chart (EDC) was designed, developed, and piloted with patients attending the glaucoma clinic over 1 month. A cross-sectional prospective pilot study of 25 patients using an administration aid and a self-reported questionnaire. Chi-square tests were used to compare responses pre- and postintervention. Results demonstrated an impressive improvement in nine of eleven categories assessed regarding drop administration and compliance. Patients stating that they always wash their hands increased significantly from 64% (13 participants) to 92% (23 participants) (P=0.029), and those who always shake the bottle improved from 40% (10) to 84% (21) (P=0.001). Punctal occlusion techniques improved from 44% (11) to 72% (18) (P=0.015). Finally, patients who always discarded the bottle after 28 days of use rose from 68% to 92%, though the difference was not significant (P=0.09). Only the number of drops being administered to the eye and the length of time left between the application of drops remained relatively unchanged. Sixty-four percent reported finding EDC helpful or useful, 52% had positive responses when asked if they would continue using EDC, and 88% would recommend it to a friend. Although there are limitations to the data as they are subjective, descriptive, and limited to sample size of 25, the results of this pilot study have shown promise. The EDC appears to be a cost-effective way at improving patients' use of topical ocular medications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Master 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 26 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 29 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 May 2015.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,943
of 278,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#36
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.