Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Survey explores clinician and patient views on geographic atrophy management in Spain, indicating communication gaps.
Background/Objectives: We aim to characterize, through a survey-based approach conducted in Spain, the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients regarding geographic atrophy (GA). Methods: A survey-based study assessed ophthalmologists’, optometrists’, and AMD patients’ perceptions and practices regarding geographic atrophy management in Spain, including disease journey challenges. Results: The study sample comprised 30 ophthalmologists, 35 optometrists, and 37 patients. A substantial majority of ophthalmologists followed a specific protocol for the management of GA, in which optical coherence tomography, visual acuity assessment, and fundus examination constituted the core diagnostic procedures. Although most HCPs reported recommending low vision aids, only 5.4% of patients reported having received such a recommendation or prescription (p < 0.001). Considerable variability among the optometrists surveyed was identified regarding visual rehabilitation programmes involving low vision aids. Furthermore, while most ophthalmologists and optometrists reported having provided various types of disease-related information, a significantly lower proportion of patients reported having received information on several aspects such as the disease itself (p < 0.001), disease progression (p < 0.001), impact on quality of life (p < 0.001), or low vision aids (p < 0.001). Multiple limitations in daily living activities were reported by patients, with those diagnosed with GA experiencing significantly greater difficulty reading television subtitles (p = 0.026) and performing manual tasks (p = 0.005). Conclusions: HCPs appear to follow specific protocols and guidelines in the management of GA; however, a potential deficit in effective HCP–patient communication has been identified that should be investigated further.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piñero et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: