Patient-centred measurement in ophthalmology – a paradigm shift

Ophthalmologists and researchers in ophthalmology understand what a rapidly evolving field ophthalmology is, and that to conduct good research it is essential to use the latest and best methods. In outcomes research, one modern initiative has been to conduct holistic measurement of outcomes inclusive of the patient's point of view; patient-centred outcome. This, of course, means including a questionnaire. However, the irony of trying to improve outcomes research by being inclusive of many measures is that the researcher may not be expert in all measures used. Certainly, few people conducting outcomes research in ophthalmology would claim to be questionnaire experts. Most tend to be experts in their ophthalmic subspecialty and probably simply choose a popular questionnaire that appears to fit their needs and think little more about it. Perhaps, unlike our own field, we assume that the field of questionnaire research is relatively stable. This is far from the case. The measurement of patient-centred outcomes with questionnaires is a rapidly evolving field. Indeed, over the last few years a paradigm shift has occurred in patient-centred measurement

The Importance of Rating Scale Design in the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Questionnaires or Item Banks

This article is made available with the permission of the publisher, Association for Research in Vision and OphthalmologyPurpose.: To investigate the effect of rating scale designs (question formats and response categories) on item difficulty calibrations and assess the impact that rating scale differences have on overall vision-related activity limitation (VRAL) scores. Methods.: Sixteen existing patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) suitable for cataract assessment, with different rating scales, were self-administered by patients on a cataract surgery waiting list. A total of 226 VRAL items from these PROs in their native rating scales were included in an item bank and calibrated using Rasch analysis. Fifteen item/content areas (e.g., reading newspapers) appearing in at least three different PROs were identified. Within each content area, item calibrations were compared and their range calculated. Similarly, five PROs having at least three items in common with the Visual Function (VF-14) were compared in terms of average item measures. Results.: A total of 614 patients (mean age ± SD, 74.1 ± 9.4 years) participated. Items with the same content varied in their calibration by as much as two logits; “reading the small print” had the largest range (1.99 logits) followed by “watching TV” (1.60). Compared with the VF-14 (0.00 logits), the rating scale of the Visual Disability Assessment (1.13 logits) produced the most difficult items and the Cataract Symptom Scale (0.24 logits) produced the least difficult items. The VRAL item bank was suboptimally targeted to the ability level of the participants (2.00 logits). Conclusions.: Rating scale designs have a significant effect on item calibrations. Therefore, constructing item banks from existing items in their native formats carries risks to face validity and transmission of problems inherent in existing instruments, such as poor targeting

Identifying Content for the Glaucoma-specific Item Bank to Measure Quality-of-life Parameters

"This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in Khadka J, McAlinden C, Craig JE, Fenwick EK, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Identifying content for the glaucoma-specific item bank to measure quality-of-life parameters. Journal of Glaucoma . 2015 Jan;24(1):12-9. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318287ac11.". Author manuscript version made available in accordance with publisher copyright policy.PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become essential clinical trial end points. However, a comprehensive, multidimensional, patient-relevant, and precise glaucoma-specific PRO instrument is not available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify content for a new, glaucoma-specific, quality-of-life (QOL) item bank. METHODS: Content identification was undertaken in 5 phases: (1) identification of extant items in glaucoma-specific instruments and the qualitative literature; (2) focus groups and interviews with glaucoma patients; (3) item classification and selection; (4) expert review and revision of items; and (5) cognitive interviews with patients. RESULTS: A total of 737 unique items (extant items from PRO instruments, 247; qualitative articles, 14 items; focus groups and semistructured interviews, 476 items) were identified. These items were classified into 10 QOL domains. Four criteria (item redundancy, item inconsistent with domain definition, item content too narrow to have wider applicability, and item clarity) were used to remove and refine the items. After the cognitive interviews, the final minimally representative item set had a total of 342 unique items belonging to 10 domains: activity limitation (88), mobility (20), visual symptoms (19), ocular surface symptoms (22), general symptoms (15), convenience (39), health concerns (45), emotional well-being (49), social issues (23), and economic issues (22). CONCLUSIONS: The systematic content identification process identified 10 QOL domains, which were important to patients with glaucoma. The majority of the items were identified from the patient-specific focus groups and semistructured interviews suggesting that the existing PRO instruments do not adequately address QOL issues relevant to individuals with glaucoma

Visual Performance in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Undergoing Treatment with Intravitreal Ranibizumab

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Purpose. To assess visual function and its response to serial intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nv-AMD). Methods. Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients with nv-AMD, and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) logMAR 0.7 or better, undergoing intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, were enrolled into this prospective study. Visual function was assessed using a range of psychophysical tests, while mean foveal thickness (MFT) was determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Results. Group mean (±sd) MFT reduced significantly from baseline (233 (±59)) to exit (205 (±40)) ( ). CDVA exhibited no change between baseline and exit visits ( and , resp.). Measures of visual function that did exhibit statistically significant improvements ( for all) included reading acuity, reading speed, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity (CS), mesopic and photopic glare disability (GD), and retinotopic ocular sensitivity (ROS) at all eccentricities. Conclusion. Eyes with nv-AMD undergoing intravitreal ranibizumab injections exhibit improvements in many parameters of visual function. Outcome measures other than CDVA, such as CS, GD, and ROS, should not only be considered in the design of studies investigating nv-AMD, but also in treatment and retreatment strategies for patients with the condition

The Impact of Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema on Health-Related Quality of Life in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

This article is made available with the permission of the publisher, Association for Research in Vision and OphthalmologyPurpose.: To assess the impact of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in type 1 and type 2 diabetes using the EuroQoL EQ-5D generic multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI). Methods.: In this cross-sectional study, 577 patients with diabetes were recruited from specialized eye clinics in Melbourne, Australia. Each patient underwent clinical, biochemical, and anthropometric assessments. The severity of combined DR and DME (no DR/DME; mild NPDR [nonproliferative DR (NPDR)] and/or mild DME; moderate NPDR and/or moderate DME; and vision-threatening DR (VTDR) (severe NPDR or PDR and/or severe DME) in the worse eye was calculated. EQ-5D utility measures were the main outcome. Because the distribution of the utility measures was skewed, independent associations were explored using multivariate quantile regression models (five quintiles, namely 15th, 30th, 45th, 60th, 75th) ranging from poorest to highest HRQoL. Results.: Median age of the participants was 66 years (range, 26–90 years). Of the 577 participants, 223 (38.7%) had no DR/DME, 35 (6.1%) had mild NPDR/DME, 127 (22.0%) had moderate NPDR/DME, and 192 (33.3%) had VTDR. In adjusted models, neither presence nor severity of DR/DME was significantly associated with any quantile of the EQ-5D. In contrast, the presence of diabetic complications (other than DR) (β = −0.153; SE = 0.052; P < 0.001), other nonocular comorbidities (β = −0.115; SE = 0.038; P < 0.01), and higher body mass index (β = −0.007; SE = 0.002; P < 0.001) were all associated with worse HRQoL. Conclusions.: Using a generic MAUI, the EQ-5D, the authors found that the presence or severity of DR/DME and concomitant vision loss were not associated with any quantile of HRQoL. These findings suggest that the EQ-5D lacks sensitivity in assessing the impact of the severity of DR/DME on HRQoL parameters and that condition-specific instruments may better capture the full impact of the association

Measuring benefits and patients' satisfaction when glasses are not needed after cataract and presbyopia surgery: scoring and psychometric validation of the Freedom from Glasses Value Scale (FGVS©)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to reduce the number of items, create a scoring method and assess the psychometric properties of the Freedom from Glasses Value Scale (FGVS), which measures benefits of freedom from glasses perceived by cataract and presbyopic patients after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The 21-item FGVS, developed simultaneously in French and Spanish, was administered by phone during an observational study to 152 French and 152 Spanish patients who had undergone cataract or presbyopia surgery at least 1 year before the study. Reduction of items and creation of the scoring method employed statistical methods (principal component analysis, multitrait analysis) and content analysis. Psychometric properties (validation of the structure, internal consistency reliability, and known-group validity) of the resulting version were assessed in the pooled population and per country.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One item was deleted and 3 were kept but not aggregated in a dimension. The other 17 items were grouped into 2 dimensions ('global evaluation', 9 items; 'advantages', 8 items) and divided into 5 sub-dimensions, with higher scores indicating higher benefit of surgery. The structure was validated (good item convergent and discriminant validity). Internal consistency reliability was good for all dimensions and sub-dimensions (Cronbach's alphas above 0.70). The FGVS was able to discriminate between patients wearing glasses or not after surgery (higher scores for patients not wearing glasses). FGVS scores were significantly higher in Spain than France; however, the measure had similar psychometric performances in both countries.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The FGVS is a valid and reliable instrument measuring benefits of freedom from glasses perceived by cataract and presbyopic patients after multifocal IOL surgery.</p

Levels of State and Trait Anxiety in Patients Referred to Ophthalmology by Primary Care Clinicians: A Cross Sectional Study

Purpose There is a high level of over-referral from primary eye care leading to significant numbers of people without ocular pathology (false positives) being referred to secondary eye care. The present study used a psychometric instrument to determine whether there is a psychological burden on patients due to referral to secondary eye care, and used Rasch analysis to convert the data from an ordinal to an interval scale. Design Cross sectional study. Participants and Controls 322 participants and 80 control participants. Methods State (i.e. current) and trait (i.e. propensity to) anxiety were measured in a group of patients referred to a hospital eye department in the UK and in a control group who have had a sight test but were not referred. Response category analysis plus infit and outfit Rasch statistics and person separation indices were used to determine the usefulness of individual items and the response categories. Principal components analysis was used to determine dimensionality. Main Outcome Measure Levels of state and trait anxiety measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results State anxiety scores were significantly higher in the patients referred to secondary eye care than the controls (p0.1). Rasch analysis highlighted that the questionnaire results needed to be split into “anxiety-absent” and “anxiety-present” items for both state and trait anxiety, but both subscales showed the same profile of results between patients and controls. Conclusions State anxiety was shown to be higher in patients referred to secondary eye care than the controls, and at similar levels to people with moderate to high perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. This suggests that referral from primary to secondary eye care can result in a significant psychological burden on some patients

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in sub-Saharan Africa in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections

Background This study aimed to assess the prevalence and causes of vision loss in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in 2015, compared with prior years, and to estimate expected values for 2020. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the prevalence of blindness (presenting distance visual acuity <3/60 in the better eye), moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting distance visual acuity <6/18 but ≥3/60) and mild vision impairment (MVI; presenting distance visual acuity <6/12 and ≥6/18), and also near vision impairment (<N6 or N8 in the presence of ≥6/12 best-corrected distance visual acuity) in SSA for 1990, 2010, 2015 and 2020. In SSA, age-standardised prevalence of blindness, MSVI and MVI in 2015 were 1.03% (80% uncertainty interval (UI) 0.39–1.81), 3.64% (80% UI 1.71–5.94) and 2.94% (80% UI 1.05–5.34), respectively, for male and 1.08% (80% UI 0.40–1.93), 3.84% (80% UI 1.72–6.37) and 3.06% (80% UI 1.07–5.61) for females, constituting a significant decrease since 2010 for both genders. There were an estimated 4.28 million blind individuals and 17.36 million individuals with MSVI; 101.08 million individuals were estimated to have near vision loss due to presbyopia. Cataract was the most common cause of blindness (40.1%), whereas undercorrected refractive error (URE) (48.5%) was the most common cause of MSVI. Sub-Saharan West Africa had the highest proportion of blindness compared with the other SSA subregions. Conclusions Cataract and URE, two of the major causes of blindness and vision impairment, are reversible with treatment and thus promising targets to alleviate vision impairment in SSA

Prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment: magnitude, temporal trends and projections in South and Central Asia

BACKGROUND: To assess prevalence and causes of vision loss in Central and South Asia. METHODS: A systematic review of medical literature assessed the prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity<3/60 in the better eye), moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity <6/18 but ≥3/60) and mild vision impairment (MVI; presenting visual acuity <6/12 and ≥6/18) in Central and South Asia for 1990, 2010, 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: In Central and South Asia combined, age-standardised prevalences of blindness, MSVI and MVI in 2015 were for men and women aged 50+years, 3.72% (80% uncertainty interval (UI): 1.39-6.75) and 4.00% (80% UI: 1.41-7.39), 16.33% (80% UI: 8.55-25.47) and 17.65% (80% UI: 9.00-27.62), 11.70% (80% UI: 4.70-20.32) and 12.25% (80% UI:4.86-21.30), respectively, with a significant decrease in the study period for both gender. In South Asia in 2015, 11.76 million individuals (32.65% of the global blindness figure) were blind and 61.19 million individuals (28.3% of the global total) had MSVI. From 1990 to 2015, cataract (accounting for 36.58% of all cases with blindness in 2015) was the most common cause of blindness, followed by undercorrected refractive error (36.43%), glaucoma (5.81%), age-related macular degeneration (2.44%), corneal diseases (2.43%), diabetic retinopathy (0.16%) and trachoma (0.04%). For MSVI in South Asia 2015, most common causes were undercorrected refractive error (accounting for 66.39% of all cases with MSVI), followed by cataract (23.62%), age-related macular degeneration (1.31%) and glaucoma (1.09%). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of the global blind resided in South Asia in 2015, although the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and MSVI decreased significantly between 1990 and 2015

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in East Asia in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections

BACKGROUND: To determine the prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment (VI) in East Asia in 2015 and to forecast the trend to 2020. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we estimated prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity <3/60 in the better eye), moderate-to-severe vision impairment (MSVI; 3/60≤presenting visual acuity <6/18), mild vision impairment (mild VI: 6/18≤presenting visual acuity <6/12) and uncorrected presbyopia for 1990, 2010, 2015 and 2020. A total of 44 population-based studies were included. RESULTS: In 2015, age-standardised prevalence of blindness, MSVI, mild VI and uncorrected presbyopia was 0.37% (80% uncertainty interval (UI) 0.12%-0.68%), 3.06% (80% UI 1.35%-5.16%) and 2.65% (80% UI 0.92%-4.91%), 32.91% (80% UI 18.72%-48.47%), respectively, in East Asia. Cataract was the leading cause of blindness (43.6%), followed by uncorrected refractive error (12.9%), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal diseases, trachoma and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The leading cause for MSVI was uncorrected refractive error, followed by cataract, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, corneal disease, trachoma and DR. The burden of VI due to uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, glaucoma and DR has continued to rise over the decades reported. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the public healthcare barriers for cataract and uncorrected refractive error can help eliminate almost 57% of all blindness cases in this region. Therefore, public healthcare efforts should be focused on effective screening and effective patient education, with access to high-quality healthcare