No abstract

Which sense is most valued by the general public? Findings: This cross-sectional online survey found that sight is the most valued sense, followed by hearing. Participants would, on average, choose 4.6 years of life in perfect health over 10 years of life with complete sight loss. Members of the public valued balance above traditionally recognised senses such as touch, taste, and smell. Meaning:This study provides empirical support for frequent assertions made by practitioners, researchers and funding agencies, that sight is the most valued sense among the general population.

from eligible studies regarding study design, participant characteristics, outcomes and results. Quality of included studies was critically appraised. Of 8437 studies, 56 eligible studies were included. Studies investigated the effects of lighting on the following themes among people with POAG: QoL (18/56), psychophysical measures (16/56), functional vision (10/56), activities of daily living (10/56) and qualitative findings (2/56). POAG negatively affects low-luminance contrast sensitivity, glare symptoms, and dark adaptation time and extent. In vision-related QoL questionnaires, people with POAG report problems with lighting, glare and dark adaptation more frequently than any other domain. These problems worsen with progressing visual field loss. Early-stage POAG patients experience significantly more difficulties in low-luminance or changing lighting conditions than age-matched controls (AMCs), challenging perceptions of early-stage POAG as asymptomatic. However, performance-based studies seldom show significant differences between POAG participants and AMCs on tasks simulating daily activities under non-optimal lighting conditions. Further research with larger samples is required to optimise ambient and task-oriented lighting that can support patients' adaptation to POAG.

IntroductionAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of visual impairment, affecting central vision. Geographic atrophy (GA) is an advanced form of the non-neovascular (dry) type of AMD. Late-stage clinical trials suggest that intravitreal injections of novel therapeutics may slow down the rate of GA progression by up to 30% in 1 year, thus allowing people with GA to preserve central vision for a longer period. While intravitreal injections have become an established treatment modality for neovascular (wet) AMD, it is unknown whether patients with (more gradually progressing) GA would accept regular injections that slow down, but do not stop or reverse, vision loss. Therefore, this mixed-methods pilot study will aim to explore whether regular intravitreal injections will be acceptable as treatment for patients with GA, and the factors that may affect treatment acceptability.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods survey has been designed in collaboration with a GA patient advisory group. The survey comprises of structured questionnaires, semi-structured interview questions regarding patients’ perceptions of intravitreal injections and the burden of treatment, and a task eliciting preferences between different potential treatments. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, this study will be conducted remotely by telephone. Thirty individuals will be recruited from NHS Medical Retina clinics at Central Middlesex Hospital, London. Half of the participants will be naïve to intravitreal injections, while half will have previous experience of intravitreal injections for neovascular (wet) AMD. Qualitative data analysis will be conducted using the Framework Method of analysis to identify key themes from participants’ accounts.Ethics and disseminationThe study received Health Research Authority approval on 23 March 2021 (IRAS Project ID: 287824). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations to the medical retina community, as well as through dialogue with patients and macular disease charities.

Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is a condition where cognitively normal individuals with sight impairment experience simple and/or complex visual hallucinations. The exact pathogenesis of CBS is unknown; however, deafferentation is often recognised as a causal mechanism. Studies have provided insight into the multifaceted impact of CBS on wellbeing. Onset of CBS may cause distress among those believing visual hallucinations are indicative of a neurological condition. Hallucinatory content is often congruent with the emotional response. For example, hallucinations of a macabre nature typically result in a fearful response. Visual hallucinations may be highly disruptive, causing everyday tasks to become challenging. Clinical management relies on forewarning and pre-emptive questioning. Yet, knowledge and awareness of CBS is typically low. In this review, we provide a summary of the social and psychological implications of CBS and explore recent developments aimed at raising awareness and improving patient management.

No abstract

No abstract

Background/Objectives The acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for patients with Geographic Atrophy (GA) is currently unknown. This study therefore aimed to investigate the extent to which regular intravitreal injections may be acceptable to GA patients. Subjects/Methods Thirty UK-based individuals with GA secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), recruited from two London-based hospitals, were interviewed in April-October 2021 regarding acceptability of new GA treatments. Participants responded to a structured questionnaire, as well as open-ended questions in a semi-structured interview. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) informed framework analysis of the qualitative data. Results Twenty participants (67%) were female, and median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 83 (78, 87) years. 37% of participants had foveal centre-involving GA, and better eye median (IQR) logMAR visual acuity was 0.30 (0.17, 0.58). Data suggested that 18 participants (60% (95% CI: 41–79%)) would accept the treatment, despite awareness of potential drawbacks. Eight participants (27% (95% CI: 10–43%) were ambivalent or undecided about treatment, and four (13%) (95% CI: 0–26%) would be unlikely to accept treatment. Reducing the frequency of injections from monthly to every other month increased the proportion of participants who considered the treatments acceptable. Conversely, factors limiting acceptability clustered around: the limited magnitude of treatment efficacy; concerns about side effects or the increased risk of neovascular AMD; and the logistical burden of regular clinic visits for intravitreal injections. Misunderstandings of potential benefits indicate the need for appropriately-designed patient education tools to support decision-making. Conclusions Our study suggests a majority of participants would be positive about intravitreal treatment for GA, in spite of potential burdens.