Attitudes of potential recipients toward emerging visual prosthesis technologies.

With the advent of multiple visual prosthesis devices to treat blindness, the question of how potential patients view such interventions becomes important in order to understand the levels of expectation and acceptance, and the perceived risk-reward balance across the different device approaches. Building on previous work on single device approaches done with blind individuals in Chicago and Detroit, USA, Melbourne, Australia, and Bejing, China, we investigated attitudes in blind individuals in Athens, Greece with coverage expanded to three of the contemporary approaches, Retinal, Thalamic, and Cortical. We presented an informational lecture on the approaches, had potential participants fill out a preliminary Questionnaire 1, then organized selected subjects into focus groups for guided discussion on visual prostheses, and finally had these subjects fill out a more detailed Questionnaire 2. We report here the first quantitative data that compares multiple prosthesis approaches. Our primary findings are that for these potential patients, perceived risk continues to outweigh perceived benefits, with the Retinal approach having the least negative overall impression and the Cortical approach the most negative. Concerns about the quality of restored vision were primary. Factors that drove the choice of hypothetical participation in a clinical trial were age and years of blindness. Secondary factors focused on positive clinical outcomes. The focus groups served to swing the impressions of each approach from neutrality toward the extremes of a Likert scale, and shifted the overall willingness to participate in a clinical trial from neutral to negative. These results, coupled with informal assessment of audience questions after the informational lecture, suggest that a substantial improvement in performance over currently available devices will be necessary before visual prostheses gain wide acceptance.

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).