4.1 Article

Knowledge about glaucoma in the unselected population: A German survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages 458-463

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200210000-00016

Keywords

blindness; glaucoma; knowledge; primary open-angle glaucoma; screening

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the general population's knowledge about glaucoma. Materials and Methods: A representative survey of the German population was conducted in which 2,742 men and women were interviewed face to face. The sample was matched with the German population for age, sex, education, income, and other factors. Questions were asked concerning the nature, occurrence, possible risk factors, and course of glaucoma. Results: Fifty-one percent of the population had an active knowledge of the term glaucoma and 75% had a passive knowledge of the term. Of those interviewees with a passive knowledge, glaucoma was thought to be associated with raised intraocular pressure (IOP) by 28% and loss of visual field (14%) but also with corneal (14%) or lens disease (10%). Only 8.4% correctly recognized a basic glaucoma definition. Suspected symptoms were blurred vision (39%), pain (28%), or reading difficulties (22%). Twenty-nine percent of respondents believed that one is able to feel increased IOP. Prevention of visual loss was believed to be possible by reading (16%) or smoking less (11%). Therapeutic measures known were surgery (63%), laser treatment (26%), and medical treatment (23%). Information about glaucoma was mainly obtained from friends (44%), and less often from doctors (13%). Conclusions: In a large representative sample of the population, knowledge about glaucoma, its signs and symptoms, risk factors, treatment, and possible outcome is poor. Lack of knowledge in the general population may be an important cause for failure to detect glaucoma and may result in blindness from the disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available