Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study
Authors: Stewart Carrie , Wu Hangjian , Alagappan Uma , Azuara-Blanco Augusto , King Anthony J , Tatham Andrew J , Hernández Rodolfo , Lowe Bruce , Shotton Darian , Appiah Nana , Coffey Taylor , Vadiveloo Thenmalar , MacLennan Graeme , Gillies Katie 
Published: September 2024

Background

Glaucoma is a chronic disease of the optic nerve and a leading cause of severe visual loss in the UK. Once patients have been diagnosed, they need regular monitoring at hospital eye services. Recent advances in technology mean patients with glaucoma can now monitor their disease at home. This could be more convenient for patients and potentially reduce costs and increase capacity for the NHS. However, it is uncertain whether self-monitoring would be acceptable or possible for patients with glaucoma.

Objectives

The objectives were to: identify which patients are most appropriate for home monitoring; understand views of key stakeholders (patients, clinicians, researchers) on whether home glaucoma monitoring is feasible and acceptable; develop a conceptual framework for the economic evaluation of home glaucoma monitoring; and explore the need for and provide evidence on the design of a future study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digital technologies for home monitoring of glaucoma.

Design

In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost (I-TRAC) was a multiphase mixed-methods feasibility study with key components informed by theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Setting

Expert glaucoma specialists in the UK recruited through professional glaucoma societies; study site staff and patient participants recruited through three UK hospital eye services (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland); and UK research teams recruited though existing networks.

Intervention

Home tonometer that measures intraocular pressure and a tablet computer with a visual function application. Patients were asked to use the technology weekly for 12 weeks.

Results

Forty-two patients were recruited. Retention and completion of follow-up procedures was successful, with 95% (n= 40) completing the 3-month follow-up clinic visits. Adherence to the interventions was generally high [adherence to both devices (i.e. ≥ 80% adherence) was 55%]. Overall, patients and healthcare professionals were cautiously optimistic about the acceptability of digital technologies for home monitoring of patients with glaucoma. While most clinicians were supportive of the potential advantages glaucoma home monitoring could offer, concerns about the technologies (e.g. reliability and potential to miss disease progression) and how they would fit into routine care need to be addressed. Additionally, clarity is required on defining the ideal population for this intervention. Plans for how to evaluate value for money in a future study were also identified. However, the study also highlighted several unknowns relating to core components of a future evaluative study that require addressing before progression to a definitive effectiveness trial.

Limitations

The main limitation relates to our sample and its generalisability, for example, the over-representation of educated persons of white ethnicity who were generally experienced with technology and research motivated.

Conclusions

The In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost study has demonstrated ‘cautious optimism’ when considering patients’ and healthcare professionals’ views on the acceptability of digital technologies for home monitoring of patients with glaucoma. However, the study also highlighted several unknowns relating to the research question and design of a future evaluative study that require addressing before progression to a randomised controlled trial.

Future work

Further research is required to determine the appropriate population (i.e. low vs. high risk of progression) and further refine the intervention components and delivery for planning of future evaluation studies.

Study registration

This study is registered as Research Registry #6213.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129248) and is published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 44. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.