OBJECTIVE: To present the bother subscales of the Nursing Home Vision-Targeted Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (NHVQoL) and to examine their relationship to the original NHVQoL subscales and objective measures of visual function. METHOD: 395 nursing home residents completed the bother subscales. Associations between bother subscales and original subscales and objectively measured vision were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean bother scores ranged from 1.97 to 2.30, reflecting an average rating of "a little" bother. For 20 NHVQoL items, more than 50% of participants reported "a lot" of bother. All NHVQoL original subscale scores were moderately correlated with bother subscales (p < .0001). Bother subscales and visual acuity were not highly correlated. DISCUSSION: Nursing home residents are bothered by reductions in vision-targeted health-related quality of life. The NHVQoL bother subscales may probe the personal burden of visual problems in this population that is not captured by the original subscales or objectively measuring visual function.
OBJECTIVE: To present the bother subscales of the Nursing Home Vision-Targeted Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (NHVQoL) and to examine their relationship to the original NHVQoL subscales and objective measures of visual function. METHOD: 395 nursing home residents completed the bother subscales. Associations between bother subscales and original subscales and objectively measured vision were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean bother scores ranged from 1.97 to 2.30, reflecting an average rating of "a little" bother. For 20 NHVQoL items, more than 50% of participants reported "a lot" of bother. All NHVQoL original subscale scores were moderately correlated with bother subscales (p < .0001). Bother subscales and visual acuity were not highly correlated. DISCUSSION: Nursing home residents are bothered by reductions in vision-targeted health-related quality of life. The NHVQoL bother subscales may probe the personal burden of visual problems in this population that is not captured by the original subscales or objectively measuring visual function.
Authors: David L Roth; Louis D Burgio; Laura N Gitlin; Dolores Gallagher-Thompson; David W Coon; Steven H Belle; Alan B Stevens; Robert Burns Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2003-12
Authors: Michiel R de Boer; Annette C Moll; Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Hennie J M Völker-Dieben; Ger H M B van Rens Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Sheila K West; David Friedman; Beatriz Muñoz; Karen Bandeen Roche; William Park; James Deremeik; Robert Massof; Kevin D Frick; Aimee Broman; Wendy McGill; Donna Gilbert; Pearl German Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: John E Crews; Chiu-Fang Chou; Xinzhi Zhang; Matthew M Zack; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 1.648