nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2002 | Review Article

Vision-Specific Instruments for the Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life and Visual Functioning

A Literature Review

verfasst von: Mary Kay Margolis, Karin Coyne, Tessa Kennedy-Martin, Timothy Baker, Oliver Schein, Dennis A. Revicki

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 12/2002

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Clinically objective measures such as visual acuity or visual field provide an assessment of a patient’s visual status. However such measures may not reflect the degree of visual impairment the patient experiences in his or her daily activities. Visual impairment has been shown to have negative effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and a significant impact on daily functioning, including social activities. As such, there is a growing recognition of the importance of patient-reported outcomes of visual functioning.

This review examines the development and psychometric properties of 22 vision-specific instruments assessing visual functioning and/or the impact of visual impairment on HR-QOL or daily activities. Issues relevant to assessing vision-specific subjective outcomes are reviewed, with specific application of the reviewed instruments.

Three instruments, the Activities of Daily Vision Scale, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, and Visual Function Index have been well validated and widely used, but others also show promise. To fully capture the benefits of a new ophthalmology treatment (or new treatment for eye disease) a valid and reliable visual instrument, in which the psychometric performance has been demonstrated in the particular ocular condition being treated, should be utilised.

Rahmani B, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al. The cause-specific prevalence of visual impairment in an urban population. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1721–6PubMed

Cheng CY, Liu JH, Chen SJ, et al. Population-based study on prevalence and risk factors of age-related cataracts in Peitou, Taiwan. Chin Med J 2000; 63: 641–8

National Eye Institute [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/pdf/VPUS.pdf [Accessed 2002 May 2]

Sasaki H, Jonasson F, Kojima M, et al. The Reykjavik Eye Study: prevalence of lens opacification with reference to identical Japanese studies. Ophthalmologica 2000; 214: 412–20PubMedCrossRef

World Health Organization [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int [Accessed 2001 Jun 1]

McKay R, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Diabetic retinopathy in Victoria, Australia: The Visual Impairment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 865–70PubMedCrossRef

Morgan CL, Currie CJ, Stott NC, et al. The prevalence of multiple diabetes-related complications. Diabet Med 2000; 17: 146–51PubMedCrossRef

Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Sasikala R, et al. Vascular complications in young Asian Indian patients with Type I diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 48: 51–6PubMedCrossRef

Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Lawrence MG, et al. Improved visual function and attenuation of declines in health-related quality of life after cataract extraction. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 1419–25PubMedCrossRef

10.

West SK, Munoz B, Rubin GS, et al. Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 72–82PubMed

11.

Lee PP, Spritzer K, Hays RD. The impact of blurred vision on functioning and well-being. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 390–6PubMed

12.

Genensky SM. Acuity measurements: do they indicate how well a partially sighted person functions or could function? Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976; 53: 809–12PubMedCrossRef

13.

Cullinan TR. The epidemiology of visual disability: studies of visually disabled people in the community. Research report 28. Canterbury, England: Health Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1977

14.

Elliott DB, Patla AE, Furniss M, et al. Improvements in clinical and functional vision and quality of life after second eye cataract surgery. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 13–24PubMedCrossRef

15.

Chang-Godinich A, Ou RJ, Koch DD. Functional improvement after phacoemulsification cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 1226–31PubMedCrossRef

16.

Crabtree HL, Hildreth AJ, O’Connell JE, et al. Measuring visual symptoms in British cataract patients: the cataract symptom scale. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 519–23PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lundstrom M, Roos P, Jensen S, et al. Catquest questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: description, validity, and reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg 1997; 23: 1226–36PubMed

18.

Lundstrom M, Stenevi U, Thorburn W, et al. Catquest questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: assessment of surgical outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 968–74PubMed

19.

Lundstrom M, Brege KG, Floren I, et al. Impaired visual function after cataract surgery assessed using the catquest questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 101–8PubMedCrossRef

20.

Lundstrom M, Stenevi U, Thorburn W. Cataract surgery in the very elderly. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 408–14PubMedCrossRef

21.

Hart PM, Chakravarthy U, Stevenson MR, et al. A vision specific functional index for use in patients with age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 1115–20PubMedCrossRef

22.

McClure ME, Hart PM, Jackson AJ, et al. Macular degeneration: do conventional measurements of impaired visual function equate with visual disability? Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 244–50PubMedCrossRef

23.

Terwee CB, Gerding MN, Dekker FW, et al. Development of a disease specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with Graves’ Ophthalmopathy: the GO-QOL. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 773–9PubMedCrossRef

24.

Prager TC, Chuang AZ, Glasser JH, et al. The Houston vision assessment test (HVAT): an assessment of validity. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000; 7: 87–102PubMed

25.

Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Hassell JB, et al. Description and measurement of handicap caused by vision impairment. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999; 28: 184–6CrossRef

26.

Weih LM, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. Assessment of the impact of vision impairment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. In press

27.

Fletcher AE, Ellwein LB, Salvaray S, et al. Measurements of vision function and quality of life in patients with cataracts in southern India: report of instrument development. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 767–74PubMedCrossRef

28.

Miedziak AI, Perski T, Andrews PP, et al. Stargardt’s Macular Dystrophy: a patient’s perspective. Optometry 2000; 71: 165–76PubMed

29.

Foss AJ, Hungerford J, Lamping DL, et al. Development and validation of a patient based measure of outcome in ocular melanoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 347–51PubMedCrossRef

30.

Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, et al. Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 227–33PubMed

31.

Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, et al. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 1496–504PubMed

32.

Mangione CM. NEI VFQ-25 scoring algorithum. Bethesda (MD): National Eye Institute, 1997

33.

Mangione CM. NEI VFQ-25 scoring algorithm. Bethesda (MD): National Eye Institute, 2000

34.

Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 777–84PubMedCrossRef

35.

Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 1447–55PubMedCrossRef

36.

Cruickshanks KJ, Fryback DG, Nondahl DM, et al. Treatment choice and quality of life in patients with choroidal melanoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 461–7PubMedCrossRef

37.

Scott IU, Smiddy WE, Schiffman J, et al. Quality of life of low-vision patients and the impact of low-vision services. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 54–62PubMedCrossRef

38.

Cole SR, Beck RW, Moke PS, et al. The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: experience of the ONTT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1017–21PubMed

39.

Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL, et al. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1529–39PubMedCrossRef

40.

Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD, et al. Patient outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 665–73PubMedCrossRef

41.

Scott IU, Schein OD, West S, et al. Functional status and quality of life measurement among ophthalmic patients. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 329–35PubMedCrossRef

42.

Desai P, Reidy A, Minassian DC, et al. Gains from cataract surgery: visual function and quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 868–73PubMedCrossRef

43.

Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Massof RW. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 865–77

44.

van Dijk K, Lewallen S, Chirambo M, et al. Creation and testing of a practical visual function assesment for use in Africa: correlation with visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and near vision in Malawian adults. Ophthalmology 1999; 83: 792–5

45.

Mills RP. Correlation of quality of life with clinical symptoms and signs at the time of glaucoma diagnosis. Tr Am Ophth Soc 1998; XCVI: 753–812

46.

Pesudovs K, Coster DJ. An instrument for assessment of subjective visual disability in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 617–24PubMedCrossRef

47.

Nelson P, Aspinall P, O’Brien C. Patients’ perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 546–52PubMedCrossRef

48.

Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 630–8PubMedCrossRef

49.

Tielsch JM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, et al. Preoperative functional expectations and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing first eye cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1312–8PubMedCrossRef

50.

Cassard SD, Patrick DL, Damiano AM. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF-14. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1508–13PubMedCrossRef

51.

Alonso J, Espallargues M, Andersen TF, et al. International applicability of the VF-14: an index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 799–807PubMed

52.

Musch DC, Farjo AA, Meyer RF, et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life after corneal transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol 1997; 124: 1–8PubMed

53.

Uusitalo RJ, Tarkkanen A. Outcomes of small incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 212–21PubMed

54.

Boisjoly H, Gresset J, Fontaine N, et al. The VF-14 index of functional visual impairment in candidates for a corneal graft. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 38–44PubMedCrossRef

55.

Linder M, Chang TS, Scott IU, et al. Validity of the visual function index (VF-14) in patients with retinal disease. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1611–6PubMedCrossRef

56.

Uusitalo RJ, Brans T, Cand M, et al. Evaluating cataract surgery gains by assessing patient’s quality of life using VF-7. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 989–94PubMedCrossRef

57.

Castells X, Alonso J, Ribo C, et al. Comparison of the results of first and second cataract eye surgery. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 676–82PubMedCrossRef

58.

Frost NA, Sparrow JM, Durant JS, et al. Development of a questionnaire for measurement of vision-related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1998; 5: 185–210PubMedCrossRef

59.

Hazel CA, Petre KL, Armstrong RA, et al. Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1309–15PubMed

60.

Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Geneste B. Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health 1999; 2: 113–27PubMedCrossRef

61.

Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the activities of daily vision scale: a measure of visual functional status. Med Care 1992; 30: 1111–26PubMedCrossRef

62.

Mangione CM, Orav EJ, Lawrence MG, et al. Prediction of visual function after cataract surgery: a prospectively validated model. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1305–11PubMedCrossRef

63.

Mangione CM, Gutierrez PR, Lowe G, et al. Influence of age-related maculopathy on visual functioning and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 45–53PubMedCrossRef

64.

Superstein R, Boyaner D, Overbury O. Functional complaints, visual acuity, spatial contrast sensitivity, and glare disability in preoperative and postoperative cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 575–81PubMedCrossRef

65.

Valbuena M, Bandeen-Roche K, Rubin GS, et al. Self-reported assessment of visual function in a population-based study: The SEE Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 280–8PubMed

66.

Revicki DA, Rothman M, Luce B. Health-related quality of life assessment and the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1 (6): 394–408PubMedCrossRef

67.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16 (3): 297–334CrossRef

68.

Hays R, Anderson R, Revicki DA. Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998

69.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988

70.

Klein R, Moss SE, Klein BEK, et al. The NEI-VFQ-25 in people with long-term type 1 diabetes mellitus. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 733–40PubMed

71.

Mangione CM, Lee PP, Hays RD. Measurement of visual functioning and health-related quality of life in eye disease and cataract surgery. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996: 1045–51

72.

Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, et al. Are health-related quality of life measures affected by the mode of administration? J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 135–40PubMedCrossRef

73.

Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Juniper E, et al. Interviewer vs self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 529–34PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Vision-Specific Instruments for the Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life and Visual Functioning
A Literature Review
verfasst von: Mary Kay Margolis
Karin Coyne
Tessa Kennedy-Martin
Timothy Baker
Oliver Schein
Dennis A. Revicki
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2002
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 12/2002
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220120-00001

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2002

Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Tizanidine and Baclofen in the Management of Spasticity

Costs and Effectiveness of Using Coumarins Before, During and After Coronary Angioplasty

Combining a Budgetary-Impact Analysis and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Decision-Analytic Modelling Techniques

Long Term Cost-of-Illness in Stroke

UK Department of Health Guidance on Prescribing for Impotence Following the Introduction of Sildenafil