An international study, supported by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre: Moorfields, of almost 1,000 people living with sight loss, found that nearly one in five reported receiving or encountering eye treatments they believed to be ‘bogus’.
The study raises concerns in the eye health community around how patients must navigate an increasingly complex environment of health information and commercial treatment claims.
The study team, led by Professor Mariya Moosajee and Dr Lee Jones, surveyed 955 adults with diagnosed eye conditions in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (USA) to gauge how often they came across treatments they perceived to have an insufficient scientific evidence base or regulatory credibility as well as where they encountered them and what influenced their decisions to accept or reject them.
The survey found that 19.1% of participants reported encountering treatments they believed to be bogus. Most of the participants chose not to proceed with the treatment yet around one in four underwent the treatment.
Online advertising for these treatments was reported by nearly 58% of participants however some first heard about a treatment during an eye appointment with an eye care professional. The participants were significantly more likely to undergo the treatment than those who received online adverts and marketing.
Dr Jones, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, NIHR Clinical Research Facility, Moorfields Eye Hospital and Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, said: “Our results highlight the importance of clear and evidence-based communication between clinicians and patients as new therapies emerge, and online marketing continues to expand across the world.
Our study is about patient perceptions rather than whether the treatments really were bogus or not.
But what we’ve shown is the importance of helping patients to tell the difference between evidence-based treatments and unsupported company claims”.
The treatments reported by participants covered a broad area, including nutritional supplements and vitamins; complementary and alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy; regenerative therapies including stem cell treatments and electromagnetic devices and topical substances.
Almost 80% of the participants who turned down the treatment said they simply did not trust the claims being made. Others reported avoiding treatment after further advice from a healthcare professional.
For those who underwent treatment, patient experiences varied considerably. Some people reported spending over £10,000, while a small number described adverse effects including worsening vision, increased visual symptoms, or other health problems.
The study also found differences between countries. Participants in the USA were more likely than those in the UK to report encountering these treatments and undergoing them.
This work provides new information into how patients interpret treatment claims and go on to make decisions in today's rapidly changing healthcare environment.
Findings:
- Nearly 1 in 5 participants (19.1%) reported encountering an eye treatment they believed was bogus.
- 5% of all respondents reported undergoing one of these treatments.
- Online advertising was the most common source of exposure.
- Treatments discussed during an appointment with an eye care professional were associated with a greater likelihood of uptake.
- Reported ‘bogus’ treatments included: supplements, complementary medicine, stem cell therapies, topical medicine, and medical devices.
- Some participants reported spending more than £10,000 on treatments they later realised were not legitimate, and a small number experienced adverse effects.
For further information, please contact Helen Khan: h.khan@ucl.ac.uk
