TABLE 23Summary of attributes that the advisory panel felt were important in a monitoring service

RiskLoss of vision causing, for example, loss of the ability to drive
Trust/confidenceTrust/confidence in who was seen. It was noted that patients are influenced by advice from their optometrist. Continuity of care would be preferable and this would contribute to building up a personal relationship and, therefore, an increase in trust
Time/cost of testSome people might be more concerned about time commitments rather than cost; however, people value their sight and may be willing to give their time and money to maintain their sight
Place of testingPeople would prefer not to have to go to a hospital for appointments because of parking problems and it would be easier if the location was on a bus route; however, people will go wherever they are told is best. Although location was important, overall confidence in a person was felt to be more important
Type of appointmentThe merits of a fixed monitoring appointment arranged by the monitoring service rather than patient-arranged appointments were discussed. It was felt that a person's availability and flexibility would be affected by whether or not they were employed
Frequency of appointmentThe number of visits was felt to be of lesser importance than the serious consequences (e.g. visual loss) that might result if not seen often enough. It was noted that in England ‘low risk’ individuals are recommended to seek testing about once a year in the community. In Scotland the community optometrist could potentially see the patient two to three times per year with visual field assessment and clinical assessment (measurement of IOP) if there was concern about the results of previous tests
Length of appointmentLength of appointment was felt to be important. It was noted that people might prefer to see a specialist nurse if it involved a shorter waiting time
Type of testType of test was felt to have an influence on the overall appointment. From a patient perspective it was noted that one might undergo any recommended test to avoid going blind

From: 7, Eliciting preferences for alternative monitoring services using a discrete choice experiment

Cover of Surveillance for Ocular Hypertension: An Evidence Synthesis and Economic Evaluation
Surveillance for Ocular Hypertension: An Evidence Synthesis and Economic Evaluation.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.29.
Burr JM, Botello-Pinzon P, Takwoingi Y, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2012 Jun.
© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.