Assessing health-related quality of life in cataract patients: The relationship between utility and health-related quality of life measurement

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2000, Pages 1127-1135

  Lee, J E ^a   Fos, Peter J ^b,c   Zuniga, M A ^b   Kastl, P R ^b   Sung, J H ^b  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b TULANE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^c TULANE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Health status; Health related quality of life; Standard gambles; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CATARACT EXTRACTION; CORRELATION FUNCTION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; VISION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; CATARACT; CATARACT EXTRACTION; COST OF ILLNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SELF ASSESSMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0034444670     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1016645523769     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. 1. Feeny D, Torrance GW. Incorporating utility based quality of life assessment measures in clinical trials: Two examples. Med Care 1989; 27(Suppl): S190-S204.
2. 2. Fletcher AE, Ellwein LB, Selvaraj S, Vikaykumar V, Rahmatullah R, Thulariraj RD. Measurement of vision function and quality of life in patient with cataracts in southern India: Report of instrument development. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115(6): 767-774.
3. 3. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinsteín MC. Preferences for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Medical Decision Making 1984; 4: 315-329.
4. 4. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press, 1996; 253-265.
5. 5. Bennett K, Torrance G, Tugwell P. Methodological challenges in the development of utility measures of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clinical Trials 1991; 12: 118S-128S.
6. 6. Ware Jr. JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992; 30(6): 473-483.
7. 7. Steinberg EP, Javitt PD, Shjarkey PD, et al. The content and cost of cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 1041-1047.
8. 8. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Furlong WJ. Health utilities index. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press, 1996; 239-252.
9. 9. Tielsch JM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, et al. Preoperative functional expectations and outcomes among patients undergoing first eye cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113(10): 1312-1318.
10. 10. Alonzo J, Epsallangues M, Andersen TF, Cassard SD, Dunn E. International applicability of the VF-14: An index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology 1997; 104(5): 799-807.
11. 11. Bass EB, Steinberg EP, Pitt HA, et al. Comparison of the rating scale and standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease. Medical Decision Making 1994; 14: 307-314.
12. 12. Greset J, Boisjoly H, Nguyen TQ, et al. Validation of French-language versions of the Visual Functioning Index (VF-14) and the Cataract Symptom Score. Can J Ophthalmol 1997; 32(1): 31-37.
13. 13. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-1: Measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiology 1989; 42(4): 345-354.
14. 14. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmaco-economics 2000; 17(1): 13-35.