Cultural differences in perceived social support in patients with retinal diseases

Abstract

Aims/Purpose: To compare the perceived social support in patients with retinal diseases living in Sweden or in Portugal.Methods: Participants from Sweden were patients diagnosed with neovascular age‐related macular degeneration (nAMD). Participants from Portugal were patients diagnosed with AMD or diabetic retinopathy. Participants completed the Swedish or Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) scale. Visual acuity was measured using an ETDRS scale.Results: The final sample was formed of 269 patients comprising two groups, one group with 198 from Sweden and a second group with 71 from Portugal. The median age was 77 years (IQR = 11) and the median visual acuity was 0.22 logMAR (IQR = 0.44). There was no statistically significant difference in age nor in acuity between the groups. The Swedish group had higher proportion of women (67%) compared to the Portuguese (52%). For the MSPSS there was a higher median score of 6.08 (IQR = 1.60) in the Swedish group compared with the median of 5.33 (IQR = 0.75) in the Portuguese group (p < 0.001). The Swedish group reported higher scores in the family (p < 0.001) and significant other (p < 0.001) subscales compared to the Portuguese.Conclusions: Patients with retinal diseases from Sweden perceived better social support than patients from Portugal. Better perceived social support is expected to improve coping and adherence to treatments among patients with eye diseases. This aspect seems open for improvement in the Portuguese group.References1. Hernández‐Moreno L, et al. Is perceived social support more important than visual acuity for clinical depression and anxiety in patients with age‐related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy? Clin Rehabil 2021 Sep; 35(9): 1341–1347.2. Okada M, et al. Nonadherence or Nonpersistence to Intravitreal Injection Therapy for Neovascular Age‐Related Macular Degeneration: A Mixed‐Methods Systematic Review. Ophthalmology 2021 Feb; 128(2): 234–247.