Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2015 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

How ‘Drug Aware’ are our Glaucoma Patients?

Chirayu Mohindroo, Parul Ichhpujani

Keywords : Eyedrops, Glaucoma, IOP

Citation Information : Mohindroo C, Ichhpujani P. How ‘Drug Aware’ are our Glaucoma Patients?. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2015; 9 (2):33-37.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10008-1181

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Poor knowledge, attitude and self-care practices (KAP) as regards medication compliance is a major concern in the management of glaucoma. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge, attitude regarding eyedrop instillation and self-care practices pertaining to eyedrops in diagnosed glaucoma patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional, open-ended questionnaire-based study, 101 consecutive glaucoma patients on medication were recruited from an urban tertiary care hospital of North India. A self-designed 10-point KAP questionnaire that addressed patient-, medication-, environment- and physicians related factors was used. For each desirable answer, the participant gives a score of 1 was given and for each undesirable answer a score of ‘0’ was given for each question. The total scores for each domain were calculated separately along with the total score. The association between the individual domain scores, the total score and various sociodemographic parameters were compared using unpaired t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare the means, where the exposure variable had more than two categories. Results: Out of 101 participants, 98% knew the reason why they were instilling the medicine. Only 61.4% subjects knew that the eyedrops should be stored in cool and dry place. Nearly 30% participants believed that two eyedrops could be instilled back to back. Half of the participants (55.4%) did not consider missing a dose of medicine to be significant. Majority (89.1%) of the participants asked the doctor about the drug dosage and timings and 71.3% of them did not use the eyedrops beyond 40 days after opening the vial. 37.6% participants believed that the medicine could be discontinued without asking the doctor, once the symptoms are relieved. Eighty percent patients checked the vial for correct drug name and expiry date before buying. 57.4% of the participants washed their hands before instilling the eyedrops. Only 23.8% patients asked their doctor for alternate medication name, in case they do not get the primary medication. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean domain and total scores between males and females and between urban and rural patients. There were no statistically significant differences in knowledge (p = 0.059) and attitude (p = 0.809) scores in people with different educational qualification. But education had a statistically significant relation with the practice scores (p = 0.004) and total scores (p = 0.047). Conclusion(s): There exists marked variation in the reported practices, even in the very basic prerequisites of instilling eye-drops like washing of hands, checking the expiry date before the usage of eyedrops. The findings in our study suggest a need to better educate our patients by providing them detailed information about eyedrop and its administration. This would help to reduce patients’ frustration, improve compliance and increase the efficacy of anti-glaucoma therapy.


PDF Share
  1. Kingman S. Glaucoma is second leading cause of blindness globally. Bull World Health Organ 2004 Nov;82(11):887-888.
  2. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, Mariotti SP. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 2004; 82(11):844-851.
  3. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE, Janz NK, Wren PA, Mills RP. CIGTS Study Group. Interim clinical outcomes in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001 Nov;108(11):1943-1953.
  4. The AGIS Investigators. The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 7: the relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000 Oct;130(4):429-440.
  5. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Early manifest glaucoma trial group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002 Oct;120(10):1268-1279.
  6. Nordstrom BL, Friedman DS, Mozaffari E, Quigley HA, Walker AM. Persistence and adherence with topical glaucoma therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 2005 Oct;140(4):598-606.
  7. Zhou Z, Althin R, Sforzolini B, Dhawan R. Persistency and treatment failure in newly diagnosed open angle glaucoma patients in the United Kingdom. Br J Ophthalmol 2004 Nov;88(11):1391-1394.
  8. Stone JL, Robin AL, Novack GD, Covert DW, Cagle GD. An objective evaluation of eyedrop instillation in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2009 Jun;127(6):732-736.
  9. Tsai JC, McClure CA, Ramos SE, Schlundt DG, Pichert JW. Compliance barriers in glaucoma: a systematic classification. J Glaucoma 2003 Oct;12(5):393-338.
  10. Kass MA, Meltzer DW, Gordon M, Cooper D, Goldberg J. Compliance with topical pilocarpine treatment. Am J Ophthalmol 1986 May 15;101(5):515-523.
  11. Kass MA, Gordon M, Meltzer DW. Can ophthalmologists correctly identify patients defaulting from pilocarpine therapy? Am J Ophthalmol 1986 May 15;101(5):524-530.
  12. Zimmerman TJ, Zalta AH. Facilitating patient compliance in glaucoma therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 1983 Dec;28 Suppl:252-258.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.