Health Care Use for Eye Pain.

Importance: National estimates regarding the frequency of presentations and patterns of care for eye pain are unknown. This information could guide research and clinical efforts to optimize outcomes. Objective: To estimate eye pain visits in the US in the outpatient and emergency department (ED) settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data (2008-2019) analyzed a population-based sample of visits to outpatient clinics and EDs. The sample consisted of patients presenting with eye pain. Data were analyzed from September 2023 to April 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weighted sample data estimated outpatient and ED eye pain presentations including patient and clinician characteristics, diagnoses (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10]), and disposition. Results: From 2008 through 2019, 4.6 million (95% CI, 3.9 million to 5.3 million) outpatient and 1.0 million (95% CI, 0.8 million to 1.1 million) ED eye pain visits occurred annually. Patients were predominantly women (63.2% [95% CI, 59.4%-67.0%]) and older than 60 years (46.6% [95% CI, 42.4%-51.0%]) in the outpatient setting. Patients presenting to the ED were more often men (51.8% [95% CI, 48.7%-55.0%]) and aged younger than 45 years (aged <15 years: 16.4% [95% CI, 13.9%-18.8%]; 15-24 years: 19.2% [95% CI, 16.6%-21.7%]; and 25-44 years: 35.6% [95% CI, 32.7%-38.5%]). In nearly half of outpatient eye pain visits, the major problem was classified as nonacute (2.0 million [95% CI, 1.6 million to 2.3 million]). Eye pain was the primary reason for the visit (RFV) in 42.0% (95% CI, 37.8%-46.2%) of outpatient visits and 66.9% (95% CI, 62.9%-70.9%) of ED eye pain visits. It was the only RFV in 18.3% (95% CI, 15.0%-21.7%) of outpatient and 32.7% (95% CI, 29.0%-36.4%) of ED eye pain encounters. Ophthalmologists evaluated the largest number of outpatient visits (45.3% [95% CI, 38.8%-51.7%). The primary diagnosis was non-vision threatening for most outpatient (78.5% [95% CI, 56.8%-100%]) and ED (69.9% [95% CI, 62.1%-77.7%]) visits when eye pain was the primary RFV. Additional follow-up was scheduled in 89.4% (95% CI, 86.2%-92.6%) of visits. Conclusions and Relevance: More than 5 million eye pain visits occur annually; the largest percentage are outpatient with ophthalmologists. Most diagnoses were non-vision threatening in both the outpatient and ED setting and resulted in additional care. Expanding therapeutic approaches to treat the causes of eye pain may reduce the burden on the health care system and optimize outcomes.

Development and Validation of the Low Vision Severely Constricted Peripheral Eyesight (LV-SCOPE) Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess vision-related functioning in individuals with severe peripheral field loss (PFL). DESIGN: Prospective outcome measure development/validation study. METHODS: A 127-item questionnaire was developed based on a prior qualitative interview study. A total of 116 participants with severe PFL due to retinitis pigmentosa (RP) or glaucoma were recruited at the Kellogg Eye Center and completed the Likert-scaled telephone-administered questionnaire. Included participants had a horizontal extent of their visual field <20 degrees (RP) or a mixed or generalized stage 4 to 5 defect using the Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (glaucoma) in the better seeing eye (or in 1 eye if the fellow eye visual acuity was <20/200). Response data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and Rasch modeling. Poorly functioning items were eliminated, confirmatory factor analysis was used to ensure scale unidimensionality, and the model was refit to produce the final instrument. RESULTS: The final Low Vision Severely Constricted Peripheral Eyesight (LV-SCOPE) Questionnaire contains 53 items across 6 domains: mobility, object localization, object recognition, reading, social functioning, and technology. There were 74 items removed because of high missingness, poor factor loadings, low internal consistency, high local dependency, low item information, item redundancy, or differential item functioning. Using Rasch item calibrations, person ability scores could be calculated for each of the 6 unidimensional LV-SCOPE domains with good test-retest stability. CONCLUSIONS: The LV-SCOPE Questionnaire provides a valid and reliable measure of vision-related functioning across 6 key domains relevant to individuals with severe PFL. Findings support the clinical utility of this psychometrically valid instrument.

Glaucoma Medication Adherence 1 Year after the Support, Educate, Empower Personalized Glaucoma Coaching Program.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of the Support, Educate, Empower (SEE) glaucoma coaching program on medication adherence among poorly adherent patients with glaucoma for 12 months after cessation of the intervention. DESIGN: Uncontrolled intervention study with a pre-post design. PARTICIPANTS: The SEE cohort was recruited from the University of Michigan and included patients with glaucoma aged ≥ 40 years, taking ≥ 1 medication, who self-reported poor adherence. Electronic medication monitoring of those who completed the program continued for up to 1 year after the coaching intervention. METHODS: Adherence was monitored electronically (AdhereTech) during the 7-month program and 12-month follow-up period. Adherence was the percentage of doses taken on time. Participants were censored for surgery, change in glaucoma medications, or adherence monitor disuse. The SEE program included automated medication reminders, 3 in-person motivational interviewing-based counseling sessions with a glaucoma coach, and 5 phone calls with the coach for between-session support. There was no contact between the study team and participants during the 12-month follow-up after program cessation. Baseline participant characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. Paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to investigate significant changes in monthly adherence during follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in electronically monitored medication adherence over the 12 months following the conclusion of the SEE program. RESULTS: Of 48 participants, 39 (81%) completed the SEE program and continued electronic medication monitoring for up to 1 year after program cessation. The mean age of the participants was 64 years (standard deviation [SD], 10); of the 39 participants, 56% were male, 49% were Black, and 44% were White. The mean length of follow-up was 284 days (SD, 110; range, 41-365 days). Censoring occurred in 18 (56%) participants. The mean adherence during the follow-up period was 67% (SD, 22%). This was significantly lower than the adherence during the SEE program (mean, 81%; SD, 18%; P < 0.0001) but significantly higher than the baseline preprogram adherence (mean, 60%; SD, 18%; P = 0.0393). The largest monthly losses occurred at months 1 (mean, 7%; P = 0.0001) and 4 (mean, 6%; P = 0.0077). CONCLUSIONS: Glaucoma medication adherence decreased significantly in the year after cessation of the SEE coaching program but remained significantly higher than baseline adherence. To maintain excellent long-term medication adherence, intermittent reinforcement sessions may be necessary.

Demographic, Clinical, and Psychosocial Predictors of Change in Medication Adherence in the Support, Educate, Empower Program.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether demographic, clinical, or psychosocial factors act as moderators of change in medication adherence in the Support, Educate, Empower (SEE) program. DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm pilot study with a pre-post design. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with glaucoma aged ≥ 40 years and taking ≥ 1 glaucoma medication were recruited from the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center. Those who had electronically measured adherence ≤ 80% in the 3-month eligibility monitoring period were enrolled in the SEE program. METHODS: Medication adherence was monitored electronically during the 7-month intervention and calculated as the percentage of doses taken correctly. Change in adherence at different points in the SEE program and cumulative change in adherence were modeled with linear regression, and baseline demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors were investigated for significant associations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables associated with change in medication adherence in the SEE program. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants completed the SEE program. These participants were on average 63.9 years old (standard deviation [SD], 10.7 years), 56% (n = 22) were male, 44% (n = 17) were White, and 49% (n = 19) were Black. Medication adherence improved from an average of 59.9% (SD, 18.5%) at baseline to 83.6% (SD, 17.5%) after the final SEE session, for an increase of 23.7% (SD, 17.5%). Although participants with lower income (< $25 000 and $25 000-50 000 vs. >$50 000) had lower baseline adherence (48.4% and 64.1% vs. 70.4%), these individuals had greater increases in adherence during the first month of medication reminders (19.6% and 21.6% vs. 10.2%; P = 0.05 and P = 0.007, respectively). Participants taking fewer glaucoma medications also had significantly greater increases in adherence with medication reminders (P < 0.001). Those with higher levels of glaucoma-related distress (GD) had lower baseline adherence and greater increases in adherence with glaucoma coaching (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level factors associated with relatively greater improvements in medication adherence through the SEE Program included lower income, fewer glaucoma medications, and increased GD. These findings demonstrate that the SEE program can improve glaucoma self-management even among participants with social and psychological barriers to medication adherence.

The Burden of Caring for and Treating Glaucoma: The Patient Perspective.

PURPOSE: To understand the treatment burden experienced by patients receiving care for primary open-angle glaucoma. DESIGN: Semistructured, one-on-one, qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and age ≥40 years who were scheduled for a follow-up glaucoma appointment at the Kellogg Eye Center. Researchers used purposeful sampling to ensure that there was representation of a range of ages, disease stages, total number of medical conditions, distance traveled to clinic, history of glaucoma surgery, employment, and education. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was obtained. METHODS: Participants were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide that addressed aspects of glaucoma care that give them burden, how this burden impacts their lives, and factors that influence the burden and its impact. Researchers analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis and grounded theory to generate themes that emerged from the interviews and to map these themes into a conceptual model of glaucoma treatment burden. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes related to glaucoma treatment burden generated by qualitative analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients participated in the study. Study participants described 10 categories of glaucoma care activities that cause treatment burden, 8 themes for consequences of glaucoma treatment burden, and 25 themes of factors that influenced the workload created by the various glaucoma care activities and the consequences that they experienced because of these activities. CONCLUSIONS: Participants expressed that the treatment of glaucoma creates a burden for patients that is distinct from the burden of the disease process itself and that this burden negatively affects their quality of life and can potentially cause vision-threatening issues with medication and appointment adherence. We observed considerable variation in the extent to which participants experienced this burden and its consequences, much of which was explained by the influencing factors the participants described. Understanding glaucoma treatment burden and its influencing factors is important as we work to deliver patient-centered care and prevent vision loss.

Disparities in Eye Care Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between telemedicine utilization and sociodemographic factors among patients seeking eye care. DESIGN: Comparative utilization analysis. METHODS: We reviewed the eye care utilization patterns of a stratified random sample of 1720 patients who were seen at the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 30 to May 25, 2020) and their odds of having a video, phone, or in-person visit compared with having a deferred visit. Associations between independent variables and visit type were determined using a multinomial logistic regression model. RESULTS: Older patients had lower odds of having a video visit (P = .007) and higher odds of having an in-person visit (P = .023) compared with being deferred, and in the nonretina clinic sample, older patients still had lower odds of a video visit (P = .02). Non-White patients had lower odds of having an in-person visit (P < .02) in the overall sample compared with being deferred, with a similar trend seen in the retina clinic. The mean neighborhood median household income was $76,200 (±$33,500) and varied significantly (P < .0001) by race with Blacks having the lowest estimated mean income. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in how patients accessed eye care during the COVID-19 pandemic with older patients-those for whom COVID-19 posed a higher risk of mortality-being more likely to be seen for in-person care. In our affluent participant sample, there was a trend toward non-White patients being less likely to access care. Reimbursing telemedicine solely through broadband internet connection may further exacerbate disparities in eye care.

Comparison of Medication Adherence Assessment Tools to Identify Glaucoma Medication Nonadherence.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of 5 subjective self-assessment tools (3 adherence measures and 2 psychometric scales) and pharmacy refill data in predicting objective electronically monitored nonadherence. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Glaucoma patients (> 40 years old, >1 medication with poor self-reported adherence) were recruited from University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center for a study assessing the impact of a personalized glaucoma coaching program on medication adherence. METHODS: Participants completed an initial assessment including 5 self-assessment tools and a 3-month period of electronic monitoring of glaucoma medication adherence (AdhereTech); pharmacy refill data were obtained. Electronically monitored adherence was calculated monthly as the percentage of doses taken on time. The median of these adherence rates was designated as baseline adherence. Patients with adherence of ≤80% by electronic monitoring were considered nonadherent. Self-assessment tools were scored, and pharmacy refill data were summarized as the proportion of days covered. Correlation between measures of adherence was estimated with Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Receiver operating characteristic curves, including estimation of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were used to compare measures of adherence with respect to predicting electronically monitored nonadherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of self-reported and pharmacy refill data adherence measures in predicting electronically monitored nonadherence. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients completed 3 months of electronic monitoring with a median monthly adherence of 74 (± 21%); 53 patients (56%) were nonadherent. Pharmacy refill data were not correlated significantly with electronically monitored medication adherence (r = 0.12; P = 0.2). Of all the measures, a single-item adherence question ("Over the past month, what percentage of your drops do you think you took correctly?") showed the largest correlation with median electronically monitored adherence (r = 0.47; P < 0.0001), largest AUC for predicting nonadherence (AUC = 0.76 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.87]), best accuracy (71% [95% CI, 61%-82%]), and good sensitivity (84% [95% CI, 73%-96%]). CONCLUSIONS: The single-item question was the most accurate in predicting electronically monitored nonadherence among participants with poor self-reported adherence. In clinical practice, where alternatives are too resource intensive, this free single-item screening question can help to identify glaucoma patients at risk of poor medication adherence with reasonable accuracy.

Feasibility of a Risk-Based Approach to Cataract Surgery Preoperative Medical Evaluation.

IMPORTANCE: In 2019, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented the Patients Over Paperwork initiative, allowing hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers to establish their own policies on preoperative history and physical requirements. A risk-based approach to preoperative medical evaluation may allow surgeons to provide high-value patient care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a risk-based approach to cataract surgery preoperative medical evaluation through a lens of safety and throughput. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pilot study was performed to evaluate the implementation of a risk-based approach to preoperative medical evaluation for cataract surgery using a virtual medical history questionnaire. The intervention group, seen from June to September 2020, received the risk assessment and those who were low risk proceeded to surgery without further preoperative evaluation prior to the day of surgery. The preintervention control group included patients who received standard care from January to December 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes included rates of intraoperative complications, noneye-related emergency department visits within 7 days, inpatient admissions within 7 days of surgery, case delays, and rates of case cancellation. The secondary outcome included patient perception regarding preoperative care. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients undergoing cataract surgery were included in the intervention group (1813 [58.2%] female) and 3114 were in the control group (621/1095 [56.7%] female). The mean (SD) age was 68.6 (11.0) in the control group and 68.4 (10.5) in the intervention group. The intervention group included 126 low-risk individuals (11.5%) and 969 individuals who received standard care (88.5%). There were no differences between the control and intervention groups in terms of rates of intraoperative complications (control group vs intervention group: 21 [0.7%] vs 3 [0.3%]; difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.82 to 0.02]), 7-day noneye-related ED visits (5 [0.2%] vs 3 [0.3%]; difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -0.23 to 0.45]), 7-day inpatient admissions (6 [0.2%] vs 2 [0.2%]; difference, -0.01% [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.29]), or same-day cancellations (31 [0.8%] vs 10 [0.6%]; difference, -0.15% [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.34]). The control group had more case delays (59 [1.9%] vs 7 [0.6%]; difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -1.93 to -0.58]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that a virtual, risk-based approach to preoperative medical evaluations for cataract surgery is associated with safe and efficient outcomes. These findings may encourage health care systems and ambulatory surgery centers to tailor preoperative requirements for low-risk surgery patients.

Potential Impact of COVID-19 Disruptions on the Next Generation of Vision Scientists.

Importance: Emerging vision scientists who have yet to be awarded their first independent funding may have their research careers disproportionately affected by early COVID-19-related disruptions. In September 2020, the Alliance for Eye and Vision Research convened a panel of 22 such scientists (nominated by their academic institutions) to communicate to the US Congress about the importance of vision research. As part of the effort, interviews were conducted with scientists about the effect of the pandemic on their research. Observations: Qualitative areas of adverse consequences from the early months of COVID-19 disruptions included striking interruptions of patient-based research, limits on other types of clinical research, loss of research time for scientists with young children (especially women), challenges with animal colonies and cell cultures, impediments to research collaborations, and loss of training time. Conclusions and Relevance: The early months during the COVID-19 pandemic increased career stress on many early-stage investigators in the vision field and delayed (and may potentially derail) their ability to attract their first independent research funding grant. As a result, federal and private granting agencies may need to take these factors into account to retain talented, early-stage vision researchers.

Vision-related quality of life in adults with severe peripheral vision loss: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures may not be relevant to the full range of functional and vision-related quality of life (VR-QOL) concerns of individuals with vision impairment due to severe peripheral field loss (PFL). Measurement of VR-QOL in severe PFL is important in order to determine the effectiveness of vision rehabilitation interventions for this population. The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of severe PFL due to retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and glaucoma on VR-QOL as the initial phase in the development of a novel PRO measure. METHODS: Individuals with severe PFL due to RP or glaucoma were recruited from the Kellogg Eye Center and the Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Participants completed semi-structured qualitative interviews, the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey. Interviews were analyzed by two coders using thematic analysis. A matrix analysis was conducted to compare VR-QOL by cause of severe PFL. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation. RESULTS: The study included 37 participants (19 RP, 18 glaucoma). Median best-corrected visual acuity for those with RP and glaucoma was 20/40 and 20/27.5, while Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity was 1.2 log contrast sensitivity (logCS) and 1.1 logCS, respectively. Median domain scores on the IVI (reading, mobility, well-being) ranged from a low of - 0.2 to a high of 0.7 logits in those with RP and from 0.5 to 1.2 logits in those with glaucoma. Qualitative interviews identified six VR-QOL themes relevant across participants with both RP and glaucoma, including activity limitations, driving, emotional well-being, reading, mobility, and social function. VR-QOL concerns were largely consistent among those with severe PFL due to RP and glaucoma. These overarching themes contained content relevant to specific challenges related to severe PFL. CONCLUSIONS: There are commonly occurring VR-QOL concerns among individuals with severe PFL due to RP and glaucoma. The outlined themes will serve as the basis for development of the Low Vision Severely Constricted Peripheral Eyesight (LV-SCOPE) Questionnaire.

Reduced Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer among Women with Visual Impairment.

PURPOSE: Timely mammography to screen for breast cancer in accordance with the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations can reduce morbidity and mortality substantially. This study assessed whether the odds of undergoing screening mammography are similar for women with and without visual impairment (VI). DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 65 to 72 years enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2015. METHODS: Patients with no vision loss (NVL), partial vision loss (PVL), and severe vision loss (SVL) were matched 1:1:1 based on age, race, time in Medicare, urbanicity of residence, and overall health. Women with pre-existing breast cancer were excluded. Multivariable conditional logistic regression modeling compared the odds of undergoing screening mammography within a 2-year follow-up period among the 3 groups. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Proportion of participants undergoing mammography and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing mammography within 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1044 patients were matched (348 in each group). The mean ± standard deviation age at the index date was 69.0 ± 1.5 years for all 3 groups. The proportion of women undergoing 1 mammography screening or more within the 2-year follow-up was 69.0% (n = 240), 56.9% (n = 198), and 56.0% (n = 195) for the NVL, PVL, and SVL groups, respectively (P = 0.0005). The mean ± standard deviation number of mammography screenings undergone per patient during the 5-year period (3-year look-back plus 2-year follow-up) was 3.1 ± 2.0, 2.5 ± 2.0, and 2.3 ± 2.1 for the NVL, PVL, and SVL groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Women with SVL had 42% decreased odds (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.90; P = 0.01), and those with PVL had 44% decreased odds (OR, 0.56; CI, 0.36-0.87; P = 0.009) of undergoing mammography during follow-up compared with those with NVL. CONCLUSIONS: Women with VI were significantly less likely to undergo mammography screening for breast cancer than women without VI. Clinicians should look for ways to help ensure that patients with VI undergo mammography and other preventive screenings as recommended by the USPSTF.

Change in Ophthalmic Clinicians' Attitudes Toward Telemedicine During the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic.

Background: Ophthalmic clinicians report low confidence in telemedicine-based eye care delivery, but it may have changed given its rapid expansion during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine clinician confidence in telemedicine-based eye care services during COVID-19. Materials and Methods: An electronic survey was sent to clinicians at University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center (April 17, 2020-May 6, 2020) when nonemergent in-person visits and procedures were restricted. The primary outcome was clinician confidence in using telemedicine-based eye care during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included telemedicine utilization and its association with clinician confidence using Fisher's exact test. Results: Of the 88 respondents (90.7% response rate; n = 97 total), 83.0% (n = 73) were ophthalmologists and 17.0% (n = 15) were optometrists. Telemedicine utilization increased from 30.7% (n = 27) before the pandemic to 86.2% (n = 75) after the pandemic. Clinicians' confidence in their ability to use telemedicine varied with 28.6% (24/84) feeling confident/extremely confident, 38.1% (32/84) somewhat confident, and 33.3% (28/84) not-at-all confident. Most felt that telemedicine was underutilized (62.1%; 54/87) and planned continued use over the next year (59.8%; 52/87). Confident respondents were more likely to have performed three or more telemedicine visits (p = 0.003), to believe telemedicine was underutilized (p < 0.001), and to anticipate continued use of telemedicine (p = 0.009). Discussion: The majority of clinicians were at least somewhat confident about using telemedicine during the pandemic. Clinician confidence was associated with telemedicine visit volume and intention to continue using telemedicine. Conclusions: Policies that foster clinician confidence will be important to sustain telemedicine-based eye care delivery.

The Impact of the Support, Educate, Empower Personalized Glaucoma Coaching Pilot Study on Glaucoma Medication Adherence.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of the Support, Educate, Empower (SEE) glaucoma coaching program on medication adherence among glaucoma patients with low adherence. DESIGN: Uncontrolled intervention study with a pre-post design. PARTICIPANTS: Glaucoma patients ≥ age 40, taking ≥1 medication, who self-reported poor adherence were recruited from the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center. Adherence was monitored electronically for a 3-month baseline period; participants with median adherence of ≤80% were enrolled in the SEE program. METHODS: Participants' adherence was monitored electronically (AdhereTech, New York, NY) during the 7-month program. Adherence was calculated as the percentage of doses taken on time of those prescribed. The SEE program included (1) automated medication reminders, (2) 3 in-person counseling sessions with a glaucoma coach who had training in motivational interviewing (MI), and (3) 5 phone calls with the same coach for between-session support. The coach used a web-based tool to generate an education plan tailored to the patient's glaucoma diagnosis, test results, and ophthalmologist's recommendations (www.glaucomaeyeguide.org). The tool guided an MI-based conversation between coach and patient to identify barriers to adherence and possible solutions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline patient characteristics, and differences between those who did and did not complete the SEE program were tested with 2-sample t tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests. Adherence was compared before and after the SEE program with paired t tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in electronically monitored medication adherence. RESULTS: A total of 48 participants were enrolled. The participants were 54% male, 46% white, and on average 64 years of age (standard deviation [SD], 10.8 years), with an average worse-eye mean deviation (MD) of -7.9 dB (SD, 8.8 dB). Those completing the SEE program (n = 39) did not differ significantly from those who dropped out (n = 9) on gender, race, age, MD, or baseline adherence. Medication adherence improved from 59.9% at baseline to 81.3% (P < 0.0001) after completing the SEE program. Ninety-five percent of participants showed an improvement in adherence (mean relative improvement, 21.4%; SD, 16.5%; range, -3.2% to 74.4%; median, 20.1%). Fifty-nine percent of participants showed adherence of >80% on completing the SEE program. CONCLUSIONS: The SEE program participants showed clinically meaningful, statistically significant improvement in glaucoma medication adherence.

Application of the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative Ophthalmology Data Repository for Triaging Patients With Glaucoma and Clinic Appointments During Pandemics Such as COVID-19.

Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, eye care professionals caring for patients with sight-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma, have had to determine whether some patient appointments could safely get postponed, weighing the risk that the patient's glaucoma could worsen during the interim vs the morbidity risk of acquiring COVID-19 while seeking ophthalmic care. They also need to prioritize appointment rescheduling during the ramp-up phase (when pandemic-associated service reductions are eased). Objective: To describe a flexible and scalable scoring algorithm for patients with glaucoma that considers glaucoma severity and progression risk vs the presence of high-risk features for morbidity from COVID-19, using information from a large data repository. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients with upcoming clinic appointments for glaucoma from March 16, 2020, to April 16, 2020, at an academic institution enrolled in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) Ophthalmology Electronic Health Record Data Repository were identified. A risk stratification tool was developed that calculated a glaucoma severity and progression risk score and a COVID-19 morbidity risk score. These scores were summed to determine a total score for each patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total scores and percentages of clinic appointments recommended for rescheduling. Results: Among the 1034 patients with upcoming clinic appointments for glaucoma, the mean (SD) age was 66.7 (14.6) years. There were 575 women (55.6%), 733 White individuals (71%), and 160 Black individuals (15.5%). The mean (SD) glaucoma severity and progression risk score was 4.0 (14.4) points, the mean (SD) COVID-19 morbidity risk score was 27.2 (16.1) points, and the mean (SD) total score was 31.2 (21.4) points. During pandemic-associated reductions in services, using total score thresholds of 0, 25, and 50 points would identify 970 appointments (93.8%), 668 appointments (64.6%), and 275 appointments (26.6%), respectively, for postponement and rescheduling. The algorithm-generated total scores also helped prioritize appointment rescheduling during the ramp-up phase. Conclusions and Relevance: A tool that considers the risk of underlying ophthalmic disease progression from delayed care receipt and the morbidity risk from COVID-19 exposure was developed and implemented, facilitating the triage of upcoming ophthalmic appointments. Comparable approaches for other ophthalmic and nonophthalmic care during the COVID-19 pandemic and similar crises may be created using this methodology.

Association of Individual-Level Factors With Visual Outcomes in Optic Neuritis: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Using corticosteroids to treat acute demyelinating optic neuritis has been identified as an area for shared decision-making. However, no analysis exists to support personalized shared decision-making that considers long- and short-term treatment benefits. Objective: To develop models of individual-level visual outcomes for patients with optic neuritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT), a randomized clinical trial, was performed at 14 academic eye centers and 1 large community eye center. Adults aged 18 to 46 years with incident acute unilateral optic neuritis within 8 days of vision loss onset were included. Data were collected from July 1988 to June 1991, downloaded on October 15, 2018, and analyzed from January 24, 2019, to February 20, 2020, using multivariable linear regression modeling. Exposures: Intravenous corticosteroids vs placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Visual acuity (VA) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were 1-year contrast sensitivity (CS) and VA and CS at 15 and 30 days. Independent variables included age, sex, race, multiple sclerosis status, optic neuritis episodes in the fellow eye, vision symptoms (days), pain, optic disc swelling, viral illness, treatment group, and baseline VA or CS. Results: Of the 455 participants, median age was 31.8 (interquartile range [IQR], 26.3-37.0) years; 350 (76.9%) were women; and 388 (85.3%) were white. For 410 participants (90.1%) with 1-year outcomes, median VA improved from 20/66 (IQR, 20/28-20/630) at enrollment to 20/17 (IQR, 20/14-20/21) at 1 year. Baseline VA was the primary variable associated with 1-year VA (regression coefficient, 0.056 [95% CI, 0.008-0.103]; P = .02) if baseline VA was better than count fingers (CF). At 15 days, baseline VA and treatment status were associated with VA in those participants with baseline VA better than CF (regression coefficient, 0.305 [95% CI, 0.231-0.380]; F = 9.42; P < .001). However, the difference of medians (20/18 [95% CI, 20/17-20/19] with intravenous corticosteroids vs 20/23 [95% CI, 20/21-20/26] with placebo) was small for the median VA (20/66) in the trial. Treatment was not associated with 15-day or 1-year VA in participants with baseline VA of CF or worse. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, long-term VA was associated with severity of baseline vision loss. Early benefits with intravenous corticosteroid treatment were limited to participants with baseline VA better than CF. However, the early, temporary benefit of intravenous corticosteroids is of questionable clinical significance and should be weighed against potential harms.