Seasonal and non-seasonal depression are prevalent conditions in visual impairment (VI). We assessed the effects and side effects of light therapy in persons with severe VI/blindness who experienced recurrent depressive symptoms in winter corresponding to seasonal affective disorder (SAD) or subsyndromal SAD (sSAD).

We included 18 persons (11 with severe VI, 3 with light perception and 4 with no light perception) who met screening criteria for sSAD/SAD in a single-arm, assessor-blinded trial of 6 weeks light therapy. In the 12 persons who completed the 6 weeks of treatment, the post-treatment depression score was reduced (p < 0.001), and subjective wellbeing (p = 0.01) and sleep quality were improved (p = 0.03). In 6/12 participants (50%), the post-treatment depression score was below the cut-off set for remission. In four participants with VI, side effects (glare or transiently altered visual function) led to dropout or exclusion.

Light therapy was associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms in persons with severe VI/blindness. Eye safety remains a concern in persons with residual sight.

The aim of this ethics analysis was to highlight the overt and covert value issues with regard to two health technologies (light therapy and vitamin D therapy), the health technology assessment (HTA) and the disease of seasonal affective disorder (SAD). The present ethics analysis served as a chapter of a full HTA report that aimed to assist decision makers concerning the two technologies.

First, we used the revised Socratic approach of Hofmann et al. to build overarching topics of ethical issues, and then, we conducted a hand search and a comprehensive systematic literature search on between 12 and 14 February 2019 in seven databases.

The concrete ethical issues found concerned vulnerability of the target population and the imperative to treat depressive symptoms for the sake of preventing future harm. Further disease-related ethical issues concerned the questionable nature of SAD as a disease, autonomy, authenticity, and capacity for decision making of SAD patients, and the potential stigma related to the underdiagnosis of SAD, which is contrasted with the concern over unnecessary medicalization. Regarding the interventions and comparators, the ethical issues found concerned their benefit-harm ratios and the question of social inequality. The ethical issues related to the assessment process relate to the choice of comparators and the input data for the selected health economic studies.

The concrete ethical issues related to the interventions, the disease, and the assessment process itself were made overt in this ethics analysis. The ethics analysis provided an (additional) value context for making future decisions regarding light and vitamin D therapies.