Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1907-1915

  Aspinall, Peter A ^a,b   Johnson, Zoe K ^c   Azuara Blanco, Augusto ^c,e   Montarzino, Alicia ^a   Brice, Roger ^d   Vickers, Adrian ^d  

^a HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b PRINCESS ALEXANDRA EYE PAVILION   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d ADELPHI REAL WORLD   (United Kingdom)

^e Eye Clinic   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GLARE; GLAUCOMA; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PAIN; PATIENT INFORMATION; PERIPHERAL VISION; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; READING; SELF CARE; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SURVEY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL FIELD;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; FEMALE; GLARE; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; READING; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 44649098502     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0559     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Lee BL, Wilson MR. Health-related quality of life in patients with cataract and glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:87-94.
2. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. Vision change and quality of life in the elderly: response to cataract surgery and treatment of other chronic ocular conditions. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:680-685.
3. Scott IU, Schein OD, West S, Bandeen-Roche K, Enger C, Folstein MF. Functional status and quality of life measurement among ophthalmic patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:329-335.
4. Clemons TE, Chew EY, Bressler SB, McBee W. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS): AREDS Report No. 10. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:211-217.
5. Kymes SM, Walline JJ, Zadnik K, Gordon MO. Collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus study group; quality of life in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:527-535.
6. Mangione CM, Gutierrez PR, Lowe G, Orav EJ, Seddon JE. Influence of age related maculopathy on visual functioning and health related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:45-53.
7. Armbrecht AM, Findlay C, Kaushal S, Aspinall PA, Hill AR, Dhillon B. Is cataract surgery justified in patients with age related macular degeneration?-a visual function and quality of life assessment. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1343-1348.
8. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klien BEK. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making. 1997;17: 1-9.
9. Sherwood MB, Garcia-Siekavizza A, Meltzer MI, Hebert A, Burns AF, McGorray S. Glaucoma's impact on quality of life and its relation to clinical indicators. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:561-566.
10. Wilson MR, Coleman AL, Yu F, et al. Functional status and well- being in patients with glaucoma as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:2112-2116.
11. Parrish RK III, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997; 115:1447-1455.
12. Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:777-784.
13. Nelson P, Aspinall PA, O'Brien C. Patient perceptions of visual impairment in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol.1999;83:546-552.
14. Nelson P, Aspinall PA, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O'Brien C. Quality of life and visual function in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:139-150.
15. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Garrett S. Evidence-based medicine, utilities and quality of life. Cur Opin Ophthalmol. 1999;10: 221-226.
16. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II Measurement of vision disabilities. Opt Vis Sci. 1998;75(5):349-373.
17. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown M, Kistler J. Utility values and age- related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:47-81.
18. Tversky A, Kahneman D. A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristicsand Biases Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1982;163-178.
19. Hill AR. Making decisions in ophthalmology. Prog Retin Res. 1986;6:207-244.
20. Bass EB, Wills S, Scott IU, et al. Preference values for visual states in patients planning to undergo cataract surgery. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:324-330.
21. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(3):324-330.
22. Jampel HD. Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality oflife. TransAm Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;99:301-317.
23. Bhargava JS, Patel B, Foss AJ, Avery AJ, King AJ. Views of glaucoma patients on aspects of their treatment: an assessment of patient preference by conjoint analysis. Invest Ophthalmol VisSci. 2006; 47:2885-2888.
24. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Eong KG, Oen F, Seah S. Utility Values in Singapore Chinese adults with primary open angle and primary angle closure glaucoma. JGlaucoma. 2005;14:455-462.
25. Gupta V, Srinivasan G, Mei S, Gazzard G, Sihota R, Kapoor KS. Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life. Br JOphthalmol. 2005;89:1241-1244.
26. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, Chen E, Linden C, Alm A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility?-re- sults from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:363-371.
27. Aspinall P A, Hill A R, Nelson P, et al. Quality of life in patients with glaucoma: a conjoint analysis approach. Vis Impair Res. 2005;7: 13-26.
28. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:535-546.
29. Maas A, Stalpers L. Assessing utilities by means of conjoint measurement: an application of medical decision analysis. Med Decis Making. 1992;12:288-297.
30. van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. JHealth Serv Res Pol. 1998;3(2):70-76.
31. Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, Silvers JB, Neuhauser D. Medical decision making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998;36(8):AS31-AS45.
32. Szlyk J P, Seiple W, Fishman G, Alexander K, Grover S, Mahler C. Perceived and actual performance of daily tasks: relationship to visual function tests in individuals with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 2001;108,1:65-75.
33. Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, et al. Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82: 1236-1241.
34. Nelson-Quigg JM, Cello K, Johnson CA. Predicting binocular visual field sensitivity from monocular visual field results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2212-2221.
35. Jampel HD, Friedman DS, Quigley H, et al. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1059-1067.
36. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time trade-off scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:82-90.
37. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
38. Haughney J, Partridge M, Vogelmeier C, et al. Exacerbations of COPD: quantifying the patients perspective using discrete choice modeling. Eur Resp J. 2005;26(4):623-629.
39. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, Murawski MM, Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inform J. 1999;33:849-858.
40. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-1533.
41. Johnson R. Conjoint Analysis Software. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2001.
42. Orme B. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 1998.
43. Huber J. The importance of multinomial logit analysis in individual consumer choices. CBC System User Manual. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 1999:Appendix F.
44. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: P Zarembka, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974;105-142.
45. CBC/HB ver. 4. Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2005.
46. Chib S, Greenberg E. Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm, Am Stat. 1995;49:327-335.
47. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, et al. Bayesian Data Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall; 2004.
48. Allenby GM, Arora N, Ginter JL. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J Market Res. 1995;32:1152-1162.
49. Lenk PJ, DeSarbo WS, Green PE, et al. Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of Parthworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental design. Market Sci. 1995;15:173-191.
50. Sawtooth Software Inc. Interpreting conjoint results. CBC System Manual. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 1999: Appendix D.