Literature DB >> 10703139

Vision and quality-of-life.

G C Brown1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship of visual acuity loss to quality of life.
DESIGN: Three hundred twenty-five patients with visual loss to a minimum of 20/40 or greater in at least 1 eye were interviewed in a standardized fashion using a modified VF-14, questionnaire. Utility values were also obtained using both the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected visual acuity was correlated with the visual function score on the modified VF-14 questionnaire, as well as with utility values obtained using both the time trade-off and standard gamble methods.
RESULTS: Decreasing levels of vision in the eye with better acuity correlated directly with decreasing visual function scores on the modified VF-14 questionnaire, as did decreasing utility values using the time trade-off method of utility evaluation. The standard gamble method of utility evaluation was not as directly correlated with vision as the time trade-off method. Age, level of education, gender, race, length of time of visual loss, and the number of associated systemic comorbidities did not significantly affect the time trade-off utility values associated with visual loss in the better eye. The level of reduced vision in the better eye, rather than the specific disease process causing reduced vision, was related to mean utility values. The average person with 20/40 vision in the better seeing eye was willing to trade 2 of every 10 years of life in return for perfect vision (utility value of 0.8), while the average person with counting fingers vision in the better eye was willing to trade approximately 5 of every 10 remaining years of life (utility value of 0.52) in return for perfect vision.
CONCLUSIONS: The time trade-off method of utility evaluation appears to be an effective method for assessing quality of life associated with visual loss. Time trade-off utility values decrease in direct conjunction with decreasing vision in the better-seeing eye. Unlike the modified VF-14 test and its counterparts, utility values allow the quality of life associated with visual loss to be more readily compared to the quality of life associated with other health (disease) states. This information can be employed for cost-effective analyses that objectively compare evidence-based medicine, patient-based preferences and sound econometric principles across all specialties in health care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10703139      PMCID: PMC1298275     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc        ISSN: 0065-9533


  46 in total

Review 1.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  M C Weinstein; J E Siegel; M R Gold; M S Kamlet; L B Russell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  L B Russell; M R Gold; J E Siegel; N Daniels; M C Weinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-09       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Cost utility of the multichannel cochlear implants in 258 profoundly deaf individuals.

Authors:  J R Wyatt; J K Niparko; M Rothman; G deLissovoy
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Automated utility assessment of global health.

Authors:  R F Nease; R Tsai; L M Hynes; B Littenberg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  J E Siegel; M C Weinstein; L B Russell; M R Gold
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996 Oct 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices.

Authors:  P Wakker; A Stiggelbout
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Cost-effectiveness of screening for carotid stenosis in asymptomatic persons.

Authors:  T T Lee; N A Solomon; P A Heidenreich; J Oehlert; A M Garber
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-03-01       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Utility values and diabetic retinopathy.

Authors:  M M Brown; G C Brown; S Sharma; G Shah
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.258

9.  Cost-effectiveness of warfarin and aspirin for prophylaxis of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  B F Gage; A B Cardinalli; G W Albers; D K Owens
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-20       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Evaluating health services: the importance of patients' preferences and quality of life.

Authors:  D Yin; H P Forman; C P Langlotz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  73 in total

1.  The reproducibility of ophthalmic utility values.

Authors:  G C Brown; M M Brown; S Sharma; G Beauchamp; H Hollands
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2001

2.  How much blue light should an IOL transmit?

Authors:  M A Mainster; J R Sparrow
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 3.  Cost-Effectiveness Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Issues and Challenges.

Authors:  Jordana K Schmier; Carolyn K Hulme-Lowe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Value-based medicine and ophthalmology: an appraisal of cost-utility analyses.

Authors:  Gary C Brown; Melissa M Brown; Sanjay Sharma; Heidi Brown; Lindsay Smithen; David B Leeser; George Beauchamp
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2004

Review 5.  [Value-based medicine in ophthalmology].

Authors:  C Hirneiss; A S Neubauer; C Tribus; A Kampik
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 6.  Economic cost of age-related macular degeneration: a review of recent research.

Authors:  Kathleen M Ke; Usha Chakravarthy; Ciaran O'Neill
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.923

7.  The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  The cost-utility of aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration compared to bevacizumab and ranibizumab and the influence of model parameters.

Authors:  Mari Elshout; Margriet I van der Reis; Carroll A B Webers; Jan S A G Schouten
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Allister Gibbons; Ella H Leung; Sonia H Yoo
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Vision-related quality of life: 12-month aflibercept treatment in patients with treatment-resistant neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Meidong Zhu; Wijeyanthy Wijeyakumar; Adil R Syed; Nichole Joachim; Thomas Hong; Geoffrey K Broadhead; Haitao Li; Kehui Luo; Andrew Chang
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.