Exploring patient acceptability of emerging intravitreal therapies for Geographic Atrophy: a mixed-methods study

Quantitative responses

Descriptive analysis of demographic information and responses to the Likert-type scale questions was undertaken. Where appropriate, Spearman’s rank (r_s) correlation coefficients were calculated to explore potential associations between responses to the Likert-type scale questions on acceptability (dependent variables) and demographic and clinical characteristics (independent variables). A p-value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical tests were conducted using SPSS, version 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Qualitative responses

Data from the semi-structured interview were transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Framework Method of analysis.^38,39 This systematic qualitative data analysis method allowed for both inductive analysis (whereby open coding of the data leads to generation of themes) and deductive analysis (whereby pre-existing theory – in this case, the TFA - shapes the development of themes). Initial coding was conducted by author JE, followed by a second round of coding involving authors JE, AG, DJT and CD working collaboratively. Discrepancies regarding the best fit of text segments within the TFA matrix were resolved by author MS, an expert in acceptability who developed the TFA. This was an iterative, recursive process, and over time the team collaboratively developed a codebook (Appendix 2), establishing decision rules for coding the data into the seven TFA constructs. The software package NVIVO V.10.2 (QSR International, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) was used to manage the qualitative data.

In tandem, data which did not fit within a TFA construct were coded inductively by authors JE, AG and CD, to develop a second framework matrix encapsulating important patterns in the data falling outside the TFA.

Analysis of qualitative data within the framework matrix illustrated that participants’ responses fell within three distinct and recognisable positive, ambivalent, and negative categories.⁴⁰ The categorisation was based on participants’ expressed intentions regarding the potential treatments. For example, a participant concluding that “I think I would have the treatment at almost any cost” (P26) would be placed in the positive category, while a participant concluding that the treatment “is not for me” (P24) would be placed in the negative category. Two authors (CD and JE) independently assigned the participants into the three categories, and then compared and collaboratively refined the categorisation. Certain disagreements in categorisation were discussed with reference to the individual case in the framework matrix, and all authors subsequently met to consider these disputed cases and reach consensus. After whole team discussion, the three categories were termed “Treatment at any cost” (positive), “Ambivalent”, and “Unlikely to Proceed” (negative).

Affective attitude

As shown in Table 3 (q1-2), positive affective attitudes towards GA treatment related to participants’ profound wish to delay further vision loss in the absence of other therapeutic interventions:

“If I take the injections, it will slow down the progression. I don’t mind about [it] being life long.” (P12)

“I would do everything to have my eyesight for longer… The fact that there is any treatment, it’s a hope for people.” (P17)

For some, a positive attitude to treatments related to their ability to slow deterioration while waiting for a more efficacious therapy (“something could come along that would really reverse it” (P9)), and also as a means of remaining within a secondary eye care pathway and thus potentially facilitating early detection of other eye diseases:

“We know [the treatment] doesn’t cure it but if it slows it down, and then obviously while they’re looking in the back of your eye they can find other things.” (P13)

Several participants referenced their good relationship with clinic staff as a factor influencing their positive attitude to treatment (q3), that could reduce their anxiety around injections:

“To have a confident, experienced person doing it, is incredibly important. For the peace of mind of the person receiving it [the injection].” (P26)

More negative affective attitudes to the treatment often related to anxiety and concerns relating to the intravitreal injection procedure (q4), including among participants with experience of such injections for wet AMD:

“It is the pain definitely that scares me. I am very anxious even before the injection to a point that I don’t sleep the night before my appointment… If it could be eye drops, [that] would be much easier.” (P17)

There were particular concerns around the discomfort of the speculum (“I don’t mind the injections. It’s the clamp I don’t like.” (P1) – and q5-6), and concerns around concurrent injections for GA and wet AMD (q4):

“I wouldn’t want the two done in one day at the same time. I think the pain would be too much with this clip.” (P3)

While participants commonly reported anxiety about intravitreal injections, a significant minority – mostly, but not exclusively, with previous experience of intravitreal injections - did not see the procedure as a barrier:

“I don’t mind having injections, it is not painful. If we have to have injections, we are happy and we will come whenever you ask us to come.” (P8)

Another key issue negatively influencing attitudes to the treatment related to the anticipated waiting times at the eye clinic, not only the time commitment in itself but also because waiting often intensified patients’ anxiety about the injection (q7). Participants accepted that the procedure would inevitably take time and acknowledged demand on ophthalmology services, but still hoped for an accelerated process:

“I know there is a lot to do and a lot of people having it done. You can’t just get it at the click of a finger. But quicker would be better.” (P19)

At the same time, for some participants waiting time did not significantly influence their attitude to treatment:

“I don’t mind waiting for my turn to be seen. Also they haven’t made me wait longer than necessary.” (P24).

Burden

Participants’ perspectives within the TFA Burden construct largely clustered around two main issues: firstly, the logistics of regular travel to the eye clinic, potentially alongside relatives, friends or caregivers; and secondly, side effects and the risk of developing wet AMD in the GA eye.

For some participants, their proximity to (q8) and/or ease of travel (q9) to the eye clinic meant that regularly attending injection appointments was perceived to require little effort. However, for others the regular, frequent travel to hospital for potentially lifelong injections was a burdensome prospect (q10-12), Some participants reflected that relatives or caregivers accompanying them to the eye clinic might also feel burdened (q13), although for other participants this was not always considered an imposition (“My daughter is really good. She brings me to hospital for my appointments, she wouldn’t mind waiting. I suppose it gets on her nerves sometimes but she does it” (P15)). Indeed, many participants reflected on how the effort required to attend injections might be differentially influenced by living situation, mobility, and/or transport options:

“Clearly, for some people it will be the cost. If you don’t have a lot of money then even the bus fare can be an issue. Mobility is a major issue.” (P29)

One suggestion to mitigate the logistical burden was hospital-arranged transport: “I think if you could organise transport to bring me to hospital it would be easier.” (P29).

Participants were asked whether hypothetically they would prefer injections to be delivered at their local optometrist rather than coming to hospital; for some participants, that would reduce burden (“Would my opticians do the injections? Oh that’s a good idea! It is a very good idea to have it in local close proximity.” (P14)). However, other participants expressed a strong preference for injections at hospital, citing trust in their doctor and feeling safer in case anything went wrong: “I would want to come to the hospital. Because it’s much safer, I feel safe.” (P17)

Within the construct of Burden, participants also discussed side effects (q14) and the risk of developing wet AMD in the GA eye (q15). For some participants, concern about side effects was a major barrier to treatment acceptability (e.g. “Side effects can hold me back from having injections. (P21)), with several referring to their fear of “something going wrong… The eye is a very delicate place” (P29). However, other participants had few concerns about side effects of treatment, having become familiar with the intravitreal injection process through wet AMD treatment:

“All the stuff they put in there is the safeguard of all that infection-wise. So I don’t get worried about that now. The first couple of times I was always worried that it could get a little bit of a bleed, but that’s not a problem apparently.” (P9)

Wet AMD was considered by some participants as “the more dangerous one” (P13), and this increased risk due to GA injections was described as “off-putting” (P25) and leaving participants “concerned” (P5, P10, P25). While there were widespread concerns about wet AMD, there were a small number of participants who did not see this as a concern, for example because they were already living with wet AMD and this was being successfully treated:

“I have the wet form in my other eye and I am having injections anyway, so having wet in this one [the GA eye] as well doesn’t make difference.” (P6)

As discussed under Affective attitude, some participants were worried about the idea of two injections (for wet AMD and for GA) on the same visit. However, one participant expressed a preference for simultaneous injections which would allay the potential burden of developing wet AMD:

“The additional risk of getting wet AMD wouldn’t be an offput - because it wouldn’t be an extra session every month” (P26).

Ethicality

The TFA construct of Ethicality, concerning the fit of the intervention with the participant’s value system, was somewhat less salient in participants’ accounts than other constructs. The only recurring theme within the Ethicality construct centred around norms of independence and self-reliance, valorisation of which would encourage many participants to take up GA treatment (q16). One participant also discussed concerns about overburdening healthcare staff and straining scarce resources were she to undergo frequent injections (q17).

Intervention coherence

There was a high degree of variation among our sample in terms of understanding the aims of treatment and its anticipated effects. Some participants clearly evidenced their understanding of the mechanism of GA intravitreal treatments being to slow down, rather than stop or reverse, deterioration thus enabling some retention of good vision for longer (q18). However, even participants who at first seemed to understand the treatment effects were essentially anticipating a relative “steadying” of vision loss (rather than continued, but slower, deterioration):

“I know it [the treatment] will not improve my vision, but as long as it will make it steady that’s better.” (P2).

“If I didn’t have the injections, it may go a lot quicker. If [treatment] stabilises it – well, I know it will not stabilise it - but if it will hold it back, that would be perfect.” (P14)

“If I know it will slow the progression and it stays as it is now, I don’t mind… I wouldn’t see any difference, would I?” (P10)

These quotations highlight the complexity for participants in understanding the treatment effects, and the importance of accurately setting patient expectations before initiating treatment. As the third quotation (from P10) shows, some participants were aware they would not be able to perceive a noticeable difference in their GA progression first-hand, but still assumed their vision would remain at the same level. There was even lower intervention coherence among participants who believed the treatment could reverse their vision loss (q20), for example restoring their ability to engage in functional activities such as reading (“I will be able to see longer and read. I can’t read well now” (P6)).

Common misunderstandings or queries also centred around the potentially lifelong timeline of treatment (q21-22), with several participants lacking understanding that the treatment would require long-term adherence and persistence to remain effective:

“I try the injections… If it’s working, I continue it. If it’s worse for the eye, I will stop… So if it is the same after one, I continue, same after two, I continue. But if it is not better after three [injections], I will stop.” (P7)

In terms of the actual procedure, some participants with experience of intravitreal injections for wet AMD were clear that they knew what to expect and would therefore have few queries (q19). Several participants believed that they would need further information before initiating treatment (q23-24), particularly regarding guarantees of treatment efficacy.

Opportunity costs

Opportunity costs refer to the extent to which benefits, profits and values would be given up to undergo GA treatment. While many participants discussed a negative affective attitude towards long waiting times in the eye clinic (see ‘Affective Attitude’ above), only one participant (q27) articulated what she would be giving up in order to commit time to injections. Conversely, one participant was clear that time in clinic would not be taking away from her time to do other things (q25), and therefore there was no opportunity cost.

While financial implications were discussed in the context of transport (see ‘Burden’ above), cost was not a factor discussed by participants because NHS treatment in the UK is free at the point of delivery to patients. One participant explicitly stated that in other health systems, treatment costs could be a major disadvantage for patients (q26).

Perceived effectiveness

In this study, we considered perceived effectiveness as the extent to which participants perceived GA treatment as likely to achieve its purpose and result in tangible benefits. Often the benefits referred to by participants related to prolonging their participation in functional activities such as driving and reading, leisure and social and/or family activities (e.g. “I’m hoping that I can continue playing golf for longer… As long as it keeps my vision as it is I’m well capable of driving, it’s not a problem at all. I drive and see my grandchildren.” (P13)). However, some participants – even if overall accepting of the treatment – voiced disappointment that the treatments can only slow down, but not stop or reverse, GA progression: “Well, er… that’s the best they can do? Slow down the process?” (P30).

For many participants, the benefits of slowing down vision loss were presented in the context of their advanced age, meaning that even a modest amount of time with preserved vision would be valuable (q28). As one participant stated:

“[Treatment will allow me] to keep what I have got, to carry on doing things longer. As I said I am [86-90 years old], I don’t know how many years I’ve got, I will not live up to 200.” (P10)

However, conversely, some participants referred to their age as a factor which would counteract the perceived effectiveness of treatment, unsure if the benefits outweigh the efforts and drawbacks of regular injections as they looked to the future (q29). For example, one participant with good visual acuity (0.16 logMAR) in her GA eye stated:

“I am [81-85] years old, if I have 2 more years I will be satisfied… I think I’ll go on like this for another couple of years.” (P11).

Indeed, one participant (0.4 logMAR in GA eye, 0.2 logMAR in fellow eye) discussed his concerns around perceived effectiveness on the basis that he saw no rationale for injections (q30), because he perceives his current visual function as good and he does not want to risk “my eyes being affected in any way” (P4 – see OCT images in Appendix 4). This participant’s attitude is consistent with the notion that visual function is driven primarily by the better-seeing eye. However, another participant (0.04 logMAR in GA eye, 0.86 in fellow eye) voiced a contrasting perspective, namely that his good level of vision would enable him to regularly attend the eye clinic for GA treatment:

“I have good vision now, in my right eye, the left eye is wet. It does not affect me, I don’t mind coming for treatment as many times as needed.” (P5)

At the other end of the spectrum were participants with advanced vision loss who saw the perceived effectiveness of treatment as low, since it could not restore their lost vision and thus improve their vision-related quality of life (q31). For example, one participant (CF in GA eye, 0.92 logMAR in fellow eye) stated:

“If there is no improvement in my life - for example I want to read, I can’t read my bible, that pains me - then what’s the point? It will put me off [treatment].” (P23)

Participants also discussed a more conceptual point, namely that patients being treated would not be able to see benefits first-hand in terms of their vision improving, in contrast to wet AMD treatment (q32). As another participant stated, “If they keep on having the injection and they can’t see a benefit, they won’t be happy.” (P23). One participant alluded to the fact that benefits of treatment would only be perceptible in the long-term, in the absence of any immediate effect after each injection:

“Well I wouldn’t like to do it for nothing, to get no results at all. But I wouldn’t know until it’s done.” (P30).

Self-efficacy

Participants only sparingly discussed issues relating to Self-efficacy, their confidence in their ability to undergo the treatment. Comments within this construct related to confidence in the injection procedure being carried out in a hospital rather than optometrist setting (q33), and to uncertainty regarding their confidence in committing to lifelong injections (q34).