ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has emerged as a safe and cost-effective alternative to traditional ophthalmology clinic visits. This study evaluated patient attitudes towards telemedicine at a full-service, retina-only practice to identify areas for growth in implementation. METHODS: A survey was distributed to established patients at University Retina and Macula Associates following the completion of a telemedicine encounter in July 2021. On a 5-point Likert scale, patients compared telemedicine to in-person visits for six domains: ability to ease COVID-related anxiety, efficiency, patient education, quality of care, fulfillment of personal needs, and convenience. Pearson's χ2 and Fisher's exact test were used to assess correlations between demographic factors and patient attitudes or preference towards telemedicine. RESULTS: Among 103 respondents, two-thirds (68.7%) preferred in-person compared to telemedicine encounters. Overall, patients had a neutral attitude towards telemedicine [mean Likert rating (SD) = 3.11/5 ± 0.82]. Questions assessing "patient education" and "telemedicine efficiency" received the greatest proportion of positive and negative responses, respectively. Positive attitudes were more frequent among patients with prior telemedicine experience (87.5%) compared to never-users (71.8%; p = 0.046). Patients ≥ 75 years old tended to negatively assess telemedicine regarding reduction of COVID-19-related anxiety, efficiency, patient education, and physician facetime (p < 0.05 for all). A positive but non-significant trend was observed between higher education level and positive attitude towards telemedicine (p = 0.18). Telehealth never-users more often negatively rated receiving adequate facetime with the physician virtually (54.7%) compared to prior users (25.6%; p = 0.004). Younger age, prior history of telemedicine use, and higher education level were associated with increased preference for telemedicine (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed hesitance remains among patients towards adoption of telemedicine. Targeting age-, experience-, and education-related barriers will be invaluable for increasing acceptance of this healthcare delivery model.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment-related preferences among patients receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey of patients with nAMD or DME treated at one of three US-based retina clinics. Prior to survey development, small focus groups with anti-VEGF-treated patients identified five treatment-related "attributes" considered important to those with nAMD or DME: vision outcomes, cost to the insurance provider, cost to the patient, frequency of treatment, and drug label status. Attributes were described using two to three "levels", and hypothetical treatment profiles were generated by assigning one level to each attribute. Surveyed patients were asked to indicate their preference between two given treatment profiles for a total of eight pairwise comparisons. Discrete choice conjoint analysis was performed to estimate the relative importance of each attribute for the overall patient cohort, and for subgroups stratified by age and highest education level. RESULTS: Among 300 respondents, 54% were female, 78% were aged ≥65 years, and 67% indicated that high school was their highest level of education. Achieving good vision was the most important factor associated with anti-VEGF therapy for nAMD or DME (relative importance, 40.4%), followed by low cost to the patient, on-label drug status, less frequent treatment intervals, and low cost to the insurance provider (23.1%, 21.3%, 12.2%, and 3.0%, respectively). When patients were stratified by age group or highest education level, preference trends across subgroups were generally comparable with the overall cohort. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that treatment decisions regarding anti-VEGF therapies for nAMD or DME are most likely driven by their efficacy, and that patients may be willing to accept less desirable treatment attributes, such as increased cost and/or injection frequency, in order to achieve superior vision outcomes.
