| Literature DB >> 31401749 |
Joonas Taipale1, Alexandra Mikhailova2, Matti Ojamo2,3, Janika Nättinen4, Saku Väätäinen5,6, Mika Gissler3,7, Seppo Koskinen3, Harri Rissanen3, Päivi Sainio3, Hannu Uusitalo4,2,8.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of visual acuity (VA) on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and the cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in HRQoL during the 11-year follow-up were investigated. The aim was to examine the impact declining vision has on HRQoL and to provide comparable data to facilitate the allocation of health-care resources.Entities:
Keywords: Epidemiology; Follow-up study; Population-based study; Quality of life; Visual acuity
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31401749 PMCID: PMC6863947 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02260-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Qual Life Res ISSN: 0962-9343 Impact factor: 4.147
The demographics of study participants aged 30 years or older
| 2000 | 2011 | Both time points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size (% women) | 8028 (54.7%) | 8006 (53.0%) | 4703 (55.5%) |
| Mean age (SD) | 54.71 (16.2) | 55.34 (15.6) | 49.6 (12.1)a 60.0 (12.1)b |
| EQ-5D Index Score available | 6148 | 4084 | 3131 |
| 15D index score available | 6166 | 4266 | 3510 |
| Distance VA measured | 6674 | 4619 | 3867 |
| Near VA measured | 6646 | 4618 | 3860 |
aIn baseline
bIn follow-up
Distance and near VA in different age groups in Health 2000 and 2011 studies
| 2000 | 2011 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30–44 | 45–54 | 55–64 | 65–74 | 75+ | All | 30–44 | 45–54 | 55–64 | 65–74 | 75+ | All | |
| 2210 | 1666 | 1124 | 842 | 832 | 1039 | 1057 | 1160 | 850 | 513 | |||
| 52.9 | 51.3 | 53.5 | 56.8 | 70.6 | 57.4 | 55.0 | 52.8 | 55.5 | 59.3 | |||
| Good % (VA ≥ 1) | 94.0 | 85.0 | 78.7 | 53.7 | 17.9 | 95.6 | 91.0 | 83.8 | 70.5 | 31.2 | ||
| Adequate % (VA 0.63 | 4.4 | 12.0 | 16.5 | 34.0 | 39.9 | 3.5 | 7.3 | 12.4 | 23.3 | 43.2 | ||
| Weak % (VA 0.32–0.5) | 1.5 | 2.8 | 4.3 | 9.9 | 29.4 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 19.7 | ||
| Impaired % (0.1–0.25) | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 1.8 | 8.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 4.3 | ||
| Severe loss % (VA < 0.1) | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1.6 | ||
| 1.16 | 1.09 | 1.03 | 0.88 | 0.58 | 1.19 | 1.14 | 1.08 | 0.99 | 0.74 | |||
| 2 210 | 1 661 | 1 118 | 838 | 819 | 1 039 | 1 055 | 1 160 | 849 | 515 | |||
| 52.9 | 51.4 | 53.5 | 56.7 | 70.8 | 57.4 | 54.9 | 52.8 | 55.5 | 59.4 | |||
| Good % (VA ≥ 1) | 86.4 | 54.5 | 56.3 | 42.7 | 18.8 | 90.0 | 63.7 | 61.9 | 53.3 | 28.7 | ||
| Adequate % (VA 0.63–0.8) | 12.4 | 37.7 | 37.3 | 45.8 | 47.5 | 8.9 | 31.8 | 31.6 | 38.3 | 47.2 | ||
| Weak % (VA 0.32–0.5) | 1.1 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 9.4 | 22.0 | 1.1 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 7.1 | 18.8 | ||
| Impaired % (0.1–0.25) | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 4.5 | ||
| Severe loss % (VA < 0.1) | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | ||
| 1.14 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.63 | 1.16 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.75 | |||
The prevalence is adjusted based on the weighting scheme of the National Institute for Health and Welfare. Different weights have been applied for 2000 and 2011 data to represent the Finnish population in each of these time points. Weighting is adjusted for age and sex, and also accounts for the loss between the time points
Fig. 1Differences in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) index scores in relation to those with good habitual distance (a, b) and near (c, d) visual acuity (VA) in both time points. The y-axis represents the mean index value difference in relation to good VA (VA ≥ 1.0). The x-axis represents VA groups. Dashed line represents the minimal clinically important change (MCIC), 0.07 for EQ-5D and 0.015 for 15D [34, 35]. The weighting scheme is applied to address the differences in study populations’ age and sex distributions and to allow the comparison between the time points. The mean HRQoL index values for good VA group were 0.87 for a, 0.93 for b, 0.88 in 2000, and 0.87 in 2011 for c and 0.93 for d
Fig. 2The proportion of participants reporting difficulties in individual EQ-5D dimensions, grouped according to visual acuity (VA). The x-axis represents EQ-5D dimensions for each VA group and the y-axis the proportion of participants reporting difficulties (answering 2 or 3 to a dimension). Correlations according to Kendall’s tau-B with their p values are shown for each dimension. All values presented are adjusted for sex and age
The odds of having difficulties in EQ-5D dimensions compared to those in good distance visual acuity (VA ≥ 1.0) group
| 2000 Distance VA | Mobility ( | Self-care ( | Usual activities ( | Pain/discomfort ( | Anxiety/depression ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adequate 0.63–0.8 | 1.173 (0.991–1.389) | 1.217 (0.951–1.557) | 1.141 (0.959–1.359) | 1.051 (0.847–1.304) | |
Weak 0.32–0.5 | 0.910 (0.712–1.163) | 1.287 (0.916–1.808) | |||
Impaired or severe loss ≤ 0.25 | 0.967 (0.555–1.683) |
The Odds Ratios (with 95% CI) are estimated through SPSS complex samples logistic regression analysis adjusted with sex, age, and the following comorbidities: heart diseases, pulmonary diseases, vascular diseases, musculoskeletal conditions, psychiatric diseases, hypertension, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and cancer. p values, showing the trends, are adjusted with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Bolded values denote statistically significant (p < 0.05) odds ratios compared to good vision (VA ≥ 1.0)
The odds of having difficulties in EQ-5D dimensions compared to those in good near visual acuity (VA ≥ 1.0) group
| 2000 near VA | Mobility ( | Self-care ( | Usual activities ( | Pain/discomfort ( | Anxiety/depression ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adequate 0.63–0.8 | 1.158 (0.991–1.354) | 1.076 (0.956–1.210) | |||
Weak 0.32–0.5 | 1.126 (0.869–1.460) | 1.045 (0.696–1.570) | |||
Impaired or severe loss ≤ 0.25 | 1.499 (0.861–2.612) |
The Odds Ratios (with 95% CI) are estimated through SPSS complex samples logistic regression analysis adjusted with sex, age, and the following comorbidities: heart diseases, pulmonary diseases, vascular diseases, musculoskeletal conditions, psychiatric diseases, hypertension, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and cancer. p values, showing the trends, are adjusted with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Bolded values denote statistically significant (p < 0.05) odds ratios compared to good vision (VA ≥ 1.0)
Multivariable regression analysis examining the changes in EQ-5D and 15D index values between 2000 and 2011
| Change in EQ-5D ( | Change in 15D ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B coefficients | Beta coefficients | B coefficients | Beta coefficients | |
| Constant | 0.409** | 0.272** | ||
| Male sex | + 0.010 | + 0.029 | − 0.002 | − 0.013 |
| Incident heart disease | − 0.032* | − 0.054* | − | − 0.065** |
| Incident pulmonary disease | − 0.024* | − 0.034* | − | − 0.086** |
| Incident vascular disease | − 0.013 | − 0.017 | − 0.013* | − 0.043* |
| Incident musculoskeletal condition | − 0.038** | − 0.103** | − 0.007* | − 0.047* |
| Incident hypertension | − 0.029** | − 0.064** | − 0.005 | − 0.027 |
| Incident diabetes | − 0.014 | − 0.020 | − | − 0.061** |
| Incident psychiatric disorder | − 0.060** | − 0.069** | − | − 0.070** |
| Incident Parkinson disease | − | − 0.026 | − | − 0.066** |
| Incident cancer | − 0.021 | − 0.028 | − 0.012* | − 0.041* |
| Change in Visual acuity (VA), compared to stable VA | ||||
| Distance VA declined | − 0.062** | − 0.090** | − | −0.117** |
| Distance VA improved | − 0.028 | − 0.027 | + 0.000 | + 0.000 |
| Near VA declined | − 0.028* | − 0.049* | − 0.012* | − 0.052* |
| Near VA improved | − 0.010 | − 0.012 | + 0.005 | + 0.014 |
| QoL index value in baseline | − | − 0.427** | − | − 0.312** |
| 0.197** | 0.193** | 0.132** | 0.128** | |
VA was considered improved or declined if difference of at least 2 lines in the Snellen eye chart was observed between the time points. The unstandardized B coefficients show the magnitude of the impact on HRQoL, while the standardized Beta coefficients allow the comparison of the explanatory variables with each other. Clinically meaningful B coefficients are bolded (≥ 0.07 for EQ-5D and ≥ 0.015 for 15D [34, 35]). It should be noted that B regression coefficients represented in the table are independent and additive, meaning that if an individual experience a, e.g., decline in both near and distance VA, the HRQoL impacts of both need to be considered (added together)
*Denotes statistical significance with p < 0.05
**Denotes statistical significance with p < 0.001
Regression analysis examining the change in 15D vision dimension between 2000 and 2011
| Beta coefficients | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.685 | < 0.001 |
| Male sex | − 0.014 | 0.344 |
| Incident heart disease | − 0.010 | 0.484 |
| Incident pulmonary disease | − 0.038 | 0.008 |
| Incident vascular disease | + 0.007 | 0.637 |
| Incident musculoskeletal condition | + 0.002 | 0.889 |
| Incident hypertension | − 0.025 | 0.094 |
| Incident diabetes | − 0.027 | 0.066 |
| Incident psychiatric disorder | − 0.004 | 0.801 |
| Incident Parkinson disease | − 0.016 | 0.248 |
| Incident cancer | − 0.006 | 0.693 |
| Change in visual acuity (VA), compared to stable VA | ||
| Distance VA declined | − 0.190 | < 0.001 |
| Distance VA improved | − 0.008 | 0.553 |
| Near VA declined | − 0.151 | < 0.001 |
| Near VA improved | − 0.004 | 0.788 |
| 15D Vision dimension value in baseline | − 0.493 | < 0.001 |
| Adjusted | 0.301 | < 0.001 |
VA was considered improved or declined if difference of at least 2 lines in the Snellen eye chart was observed between the time points. Only the standardized Beta coefficients reported to allow the comparison between the explanatory variables