BJO

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, J
Right arrow Articles by Bradley, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, J
Right arrow Articles by Bradley, C
Topic Collections
Right arrowRelevant Article
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;86:777-781
© 2002 British Journal of Ophthalmology


CLINICAL SCIENCE

Perceived quality of health care in macular disease: a survey of members of the Macular Disease Society

J Mitchell1, P Bradley2, S J Anderson3, T ffytche4, C Bradley5

1 Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
2 Macular Disease Society, UK
3 Neurosciences Research Institute, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
4 Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK
5 Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
J Mitchell, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK;
J.Mitchell{at}rhul.ac.uk

Aim: To investigate the experiences of people with macular disease within the British healthcare system.

Method: The Macular Disease Society Questionnaire, a self completion questionnaire designed to survey the experiences of people with macular disease, was sent to 2000 randomly selected members of the Macular Disease Society. The questionnaire incorporated items about people's experiences with health professionals and the information and support provided by them at the time of diagnosis and thereafter.

Results: Over 50% thought their consultant eye specialist was not interested in them as a person and 40% were dissatisfied with their diagnostic consultation. 185 people thought their general practitioner (GP) was well informed about macular disease but twice as many people thought their GP was not well informed. About an equal number of people thought their GP was supportive as those who thought their GP was not supportive. A total of 1247 people were told "nothing can be done to help with your macular disease." A number of negative emotional reactions were experienced by those people as a result, with 61% of them reporting feeling anxious or depressed. Of 282 people experiencing visual hallucinations after diagnosis with macular disease, only 20.9% were offered explanations for them.

Conclusions: Many people with macular disease have unsatisfactory experiences of the healthcare system. Many of the reasons for dissatisfaction could be resolved by healthcare professionals if they were better informed about macular disease and had a better understanding of and empathy with patients' experiences.


Keywords: macular disease; doctor-patient communication; quality of life


Relevant Article

BJO at a glance
Creig Hoyt
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2002 86: 709. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
J Percival
Practical solutions to service shortcomings in the care of older people: the case for professional collaboration
Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2004; 88(3): 439 - 440.
[Full Text]


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
L J Howe
Management of age related macular degeneration: still room for improvement
Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2003; 87 (3): 375 - 375.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2002 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.