Patient satisfaction with topical ocular hypotensives.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess patient satisfaction, convenience of use, ease of administration, side effects and treatment burden of topical ocular hypotensives. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred and forty-one patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: The Treatment Impact Patient Satisfaction Scale (TIPSS) was administered by mail to all patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension registered with Glaucoma New Zealand during a 3-month study period. The questionnaire assessed patient demographics; topical ocular hypotensive use including number of medications, frequency of administration, ease of use, class of medication, and presence/severity of side effects; impact on quality of life; and patient satisfaction. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify determinants of patient satisfaction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Almost 80% of respondents were either 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with topical ocular hypotensives. Factors that were predictive of patient satisfaction included satisfaction with frequency of eye drop use {odds ratio (OR) 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-3.1); P < 0.001}, subjective convenience (OR 2.6 [95% CI 2.0-3.4]; P < 0.001) and ease of administration (OR 2.5 [95% CI 2.0-3.3]; P < 0.001). Male gender was associated with lower satisfaction (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.5-0.9]; P = 0.01). Factors that were not predictive of patient satisfaction included age, duration of eye drop use, class of medication and the presence of side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with glaucoma and ocular hypotension are satisfied with topical ocular hypotensives. Efforts to improve patient satisfaction should focus on convenience and ease of administration.

Publication and citation analysis of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology and Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology over a 10-year period: the evolution of an ophthalmology journal.

PURPOSE: To analyse the pattern of change in publication content and citations generated by a mid-ranking ophthalmology journal as it evolved from the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology (ANZJO) to its successor, Clinical 0mp; Experimental Ophthalmology (CEO). METHODS: The Science Citation Index was used to analyse the publications of ANZJO and CEO over two 10-year periods (1990-1999 and 2000-2009, respectively). Publication and citation patterns were analysed in terms of source authors, institutions and countries. As a secondary measure, journal impact factors (JIFs) were retrieved from the Journal Citation Reports at the end of each period. RESULTS: Over the specified periods, 859 articles published in ANZJO were cited 1210 times, and 1529 articles published in CEO were cited 5374 times. Australia was the largest contributing country to both journals; however, the proportional contributions from other countries including New Zealand, UK, USA, India and China increased significantly in CEO. Articles were cited by authors from 793 institutions in 60 countries for ANZJO and 2997 institutions in 95 countries for CEO. The contribution by key authors (identified as the top 10 most-published authors) towards total journal publications was 24% in ANZJO, but only 16% in CEO; however, these publications were responsible for 26.6% and 28.8% of the total citations, respectively. With respect to the most recent JIFs, ANZJO was 0.433 in 1999 (ranked 33 of 43 journals) and CEO was 1.35 in 2008 (ranked 27 of 48 journals). CONCLUSION: CEO has substantially increased the number of publications, citation counts and international sources compared with its well-established predecessor, ANZJO, over the assessed periods. CEO also appears to have a higher international profile with increasing citations counts from more countries. This evolution from a regional, to a more international, journal has been substantial and is reflected by a significant increment in JIF, and a modest increase in overall JIF-ranking, for CEO.