Jimmy T Le1, Amanda K Bicket2, Ellen M Janssen3, Davinder Grover4, Sunita Radhakrishnan5, Steven Vold6, Michelle E Tarver7, Malvina Eydelman8, John F P Bridges9, Tianjing Li1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Glaucoma Associates of Texas, Dallas, Texas, USA. 5. Glaucoma Research and Education Group, Glaucoma Center of San Francisco and, San Francisco, California, USA. 6. Vold Vision, PLLC, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. 7. Departments of Biomedical Informatics and Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 8. Office of the Center Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland, USA. 9. Division of Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose and Throat Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients. Design: A cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS). Participants: Two hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States. Methods: We designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes. Main outcome: Ordinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights. Results: Between September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops". Conclusions: Determining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.
Purpose: To quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients. Design: A cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS). Participants: Two hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States. Methods: We designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes. Main outcome: Ordinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights. Results: Between September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops". Conclusions: Determining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.
Authors: Jonathan S Bhargava; Bakula Patel; Alexander J E Foss; Anthony J Avery; Anthony J King Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Robert N Weinreb; Christopher K S Leung; Jonathan G Crowston; Felipe A Medeiros; David S Friedman; Janey L Wiggs; Keith R Martin Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 52.329