Journey to glaucoma care – trusting but uncertain and uninformed: a qualitative study

REFERENCES

• Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Patient Centred Care: Improving Quality and Safety Through Partnership with Patients and Consumers. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Meterko M, Wright S, Lin H et al. Mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the influences of patient‐centered care and evidence‐based medicine. Health Serv Res 2010; 45: 1188–1204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archampong D, Borowski D, Wille‐jorgensen P et al. Workload and surgeon's specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012: CD005391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2327–2340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrangbaek K, Robertson R, Winblad U et al. Choice policies in northern European health systems. Health Econ Policy Law 2012; 7: 47–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission. Introducing Competition and Informed User Choice into Human Services: Reforms to Human Services. Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). Standards for General Practices, 5th ed. East Melbourne: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Levesque J‐F, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient‐centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health 2013; 12: 18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Victoor A, Delnoij DMJ, Friele RD et al. Determinants of patient choice of health care providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowling B. Kanski's Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach, 8th ed. Sydney: Elsevier Health Science, 2015. p. 928.
   Google Scholar
• Cook C, Foster P. Epidemiology of glaucoma: what's new? Can J Ophthalmol 2012; 47: 223–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keel S, Xie J, Foreman J et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in the Australian National Eye Health Survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2019; 103: 191–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samples JR, Singh K, Lin SC et al. Laser trabeculoplasty for open‐angle glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 2296–2302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh K, Lee BL, Wilson MR. A panel assessment of glaucoma management: modification of existing RAND‐like methodology for consensus in ophthalmology. Part II: results and interpretation. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145: 575–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields MB. Normal‐tension glaucoma: is it different from primary open‐angle glaucoma? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008; 19: 85–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White A, Goldberg I. Guidelines for the collaborative care of glaucoma patients and suspects by ophthalmologists and optometrists in Australia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014; 42: 107–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi‐disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, eds. The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammed K, Nolan MB, Rajjo T et al. Creating a patient‐centered health care delivery system: a systematic review of health care quality from the patient perspective. Am J Med Qual 2016; 31: 12–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marang‐van de mheen PJ, Dijs‐elsinga J, Otten W et al. The relative importance of quality of care information when choosing a hospital for surgical treatment: a hospital choice experiment. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 816–827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kooreman P, Prast H. What does behavioral economics mean for policy? Challenges to savings and health policies in The Netherlands. Q Rev R Netherlands Econ Assoc 2010; 158: 101–122.
   Google Scholar
• Dulleck U, Kerschbamer R. On doctors, mechanics, and computer specialists: the economics of credence goods. J Econ Lit 2006; 44: 5–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Victoor A, Noordman J, Sonderkamp JA et al. Are patients' preferences regarding the place of treatment heard and addressed at the point of referral: an exploratory study based on observations of GP‐patient consultations. BMC Fam Pract 2013; 14: 189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doering N, Maarse H. The use of publicly available quality information when choosing a hospital or health‐care provider: the role of the GP. Health Expect 2015; 18: 2174–2182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris MF, Pascoe S, Crossland L et al. Patients with colorectal cancer ‐ a qualitative study of referral pathways and continuing care. Aust Fam Physician 2012; 41: 899–902.
   Google Scholar
• Williams V, Boylan AM, Nunan D. Qualitative research as evidence: expanding the paradigm for evidence‐based health care. BMJ Evid Based Med 2019: bmjebm‐2018‐111131.
   Google Scholar
• Williams V, Boylan AM, Nunan D. Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias. BMJ Evid Based Med 2019: bmjebm‐2018‐111132.
   Google Scholar