P M Hart1, U Chakravarthy, M R Stevenson. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University of Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Northern Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the awareness of the existence of quality of life (QOL) instruments and their perceived relative merit in the management of various eye conditions among ophthalmologists in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was circulated among various grades of ophthalmologists attending a major UK ophthalmology conference. The respondents were asked to rank from a list in order of importance various tests of visual function in different ophthalmic conditions. RESULTS: Distance and near visual acuity were consistently rated high with mean ranks lower than 4.0. Contrast sensitivity and reading speed were consistently rated as low in importance with mean ranks ranging from 4 to 5.8. QOL instruments were deemed to be of some importance in the management of cataract and to a lesser extent in the management of age-related macular degeneration. Only 2 respondents of 36 could name either a generic or a vision-specific QOL instrument. CONCLUSION: UK ophthalmologists appear to be unfamiliar with QOL measures, despite the fact that in health economics they have become the standard means of assessing the results of health care interventions and of prioritizing funding. Notwithstanding the evolution of a variety of tests for the assessment of visual function, ophthalmologists still rely primarily on distance and, to a lesser extent, near visual acuity to plan their patient management. It is important to identify those tests of visual function that correlate best with the patient's ability to function in the seeing world, and to develop appropriate QOL instruments for use in ophthalmic disorders.
PURPOSE: To assess the awareness of the existence of quality of life (QOL) instruments and their perceived relative merit in the management of various eye conditions among ophthalmologists in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was circulated among various grades of ophthalmologists attending a major UK ophthalmology conference. The respondents were asked to rank from a list in order of importance various tests of visual function in different ophthalmic conditions. RESULTS: Distance and near visual acuity were consistently rated high with mean ranks lower than 4.0. Contrast sensitivity and reading speed were consistently rated as low in importance with mean ranks ranging from 4 to 5.8. QOL instruments were deemed to be of some importance in the management of cataract and to a lesser extent in the management of age-related macular degeneration. Only 2 respondents of 36 could name either a generic or a vision-specific QOL instrument. CONCLUSION: UK ophthalmologists appear to be unfamiliar with QOL measures, despite the fact that in health economics they have become the standard means of assessing the results of health care interventions and of prioritizing funding. Notwithstanding the evolution of a variety of tests for the assessment of visual function, ophthalmologists still rely primarily on distance and, to a lesser extent, near visual acuity to plan their patient management. It is important to identify those tests of visual function that correlate best with the patient's ability to function in the seeing world, and to develop appropriate QOL instruments for use in ophthalmic disorders.
Authors: Deanna J Taylor; Nicholas D Smith; Alison M Binns; David P Crabb Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 3.117