Quality of Life in Patients with Glaucoma: A Conjoint Analysis Approach

Visual Impairment Research

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 13-26

  Aspinall, P A ^a,b   Hill, A R ^a,b   Nelson, P ^a,b   O'brien C ^c   O'connell E ^c   McCloughan, L ^d   Azuara Blanco, A ^e   Brice, R ^f   Green, S ^f   Steeds, C ^g  

^a HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b PRINCESS ALEXANDRA EYE PAVILION   (United Kingdom)

^c TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^d NHS LOTHIAN   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^f ADELPHI REAL WORLD   (United Kingdom)

^g ALLERGAN PLC   (United States)

Author keywords

conjoint; glaucoma; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016510345     PISSN: 1388235X     EISSN: 17445167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13882350590956411     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Lee B L, Wilson M R. Health-related quality of life in patients with cataract and glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000; 9: 87 – 94, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
2. Brenner M H, Curbow B, Javitt J C, Legro M W, 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, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
3. Scott I U, Schein O D, West S, Bandeen-Roche K, Enger C, Folstein M F. Functional status and quality of life measurement among ophthalmic patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112: 329 – 335, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
4. Musch D C, Farjo A A, Meyer R F, Nehra Waldo M, Janz N K. Assessment of health related quality of life after corneal transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997; 124: 1 – 8, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
5. Moy C S, Melia B M, Gutierrez P R, Mangione C M. Assessment of visual functioning with the NEI-VFQ in patients with choroidal melanoma: a pilot study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38 (4) S841
6. Mangione C M, Gutierrez P R, Lowe G, Orav E J, Seddon J E. Influence of age related maculopathy on visual functioning and health related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 45 – 53, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF], [CSA]
7. Armbrecht A M, Findlay C, Kaushal S, Aspinall P A, Hill A R, 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, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF], [CSA]
8. Fryback D G, Lawrence W F, Martin P A, Klein R, Klien B EK. 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, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
9. Sherwood M B, Garcia-Siekavizza A, Meltzer M I, Hebert A, Burns A F, McGorray S. Glaucoma's impact on quality of life and its relation to clinical indicators. Ophthalmol 1998; 105: 561 – 566, [CSA]
10. Wilson M R, Coleman A L, Yu F, Bing E G, Sasaki I F, Berlin K, Winters J, Lai A. Functional status and well-being in patients with glaucoma as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire. Ophthalmol 1998; 105: 2112 – 2116, [CSA]
11. Parrish R K, III, Gedde S J, Scott I U, Feuer W J, Schiffman J C, Mangione C M, Montenegro-Piniella A. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 1447 – 1455, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
12. Gutierrez P, Wilson M R, Johnson C, Gordon M, Cioffi G A, Ritch R, Sherwood M, Meng K, Mangione C M. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 777 – 784, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
13. Nelson P, Aspinall P A, O'Brien C. Patient perceptions of visual impairment in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 546 – 552, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
14. Nelson P, Aspinall P A, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O'Brien C. Quality of life and visual function in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2003; 12: 139 – 150, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF], [CSA]
15. Brown M M, Brown G C, Sharma S, Garrett S. Evidence-based medicine, utilities and quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1999; 10: 221 – 226, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF], [CSA]
16. Szlyk J P, Seiple W, Fishman G A, Alexander K R, Grover S, Mahler C L. Perceived and actual performance of daily tasks: relationship to visual function tests in individuals with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmol 2001; 108 (1) 65 – 75, [CSA]
17. Brown G C, Sharma S, Brown M, Kistler J. Utility values and Age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 47 – 81, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
18. Massof R W. A systems model for low vision rehabilitiation. I. Basic concepts. Optom Vis Sci 1995; 72: 725 – 736, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
19. Bass E B, Wills S, Scott I U, Javitt J C, Tielsch J M, Schein O D, Steinberg E P. Preference values for visual states in patients planning to undergo cataract surgery. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 324 – 330, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
20. Brown M M, Brown G C, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128 (3) 324 – 330, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF], [CSA]
21. Jampel H D. Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2000; 99: 301 – 317, [CSA]
22. Rasch G. On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, J Neyman. University of California Press, Berkeley 1961; 321 – 333
23. Massof R W. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II. Measurement of vision disabilities. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75 (5) 349 – 373, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
24. Andrich D. Controvery and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms?. Med Care 2004; 42 ((1)suppl. I) 7 – 15
25. Divgi D R. Does the Rasch model really work for multiple choice items? Not if you look closely. J Educ Meas 1986; 23: 283 – 298
26. Ryan M, Farrar S. A pilot study using conjoint analysis to establish the views of users in the provision of orthodontic services in grampian. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen,. 1994, Discussion paper no. 07/940
27. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes; an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci and Medicine 1999; 48: 535 – 546, [CROSSREF]
28. San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Methodological issues in the use of conjoint analysis in health care: an application to women's preferences for the treatment of menorrhagia. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen. 1997, Discussion paper no. 06/97
29. Maas A, Stalpers L. Assessing utilities by means of conjoint measurement: an application of medical decision analysis. Med Deci Making 1992; 12: 288 – 297
30. van der, Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3 (2) 70 – 76, [CSA]
31. Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, Silvers J B, 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, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF]
32. Szeinbach S L, Barnes J H, McGhan W F, Murawski M M, Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 849 – 858
33. Ross J E, Bron A J, Clarke D D. Contrast Sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1984; 68: 821 – 827, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
34. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J. 2000; 320: 1530 – 1533
35. Mangione C M, Lee P P, Pitts J, Gutierrez P, Berry S, Hays R D. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ field test investigators. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998; 116 (11) 1496 – 1504, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
36. Steinberg E P, Tielschg J M, Schein O D, et al. The VF-14 an index of funcitonal impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112: 630 – 638, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
37. Mangione C, Lee P P, Pitts J, Gutierrez P, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays R D. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119 (7) 1050 – 1058, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
38. Johnson R. Conjoint analysis software. Sawtooth Software, Inc., Sequin, WAUSA 2001, 530 West Fir St.,98382
39. Folstein M F, Folstein S E, McHugh P R. ‘Mini-mental state.’ A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189 – 198, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF]
40. Galasko D, Klauber M R, Hofstetter R, Salmon D P, Lasker B, Thal L J. The mini-mental state examination in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Arch Neurol 1990; 47: 49 – 52, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
41. Wade D T. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford 1992
42. Esterman B. Functional scoring of the binocular visual field. Ophthalmol 1983; 89: 1226 – 1234
43. Mills R P, Drance S M. Esterman disability rating in severe glaucoma. Ophthalmol 1987; 93: 371 – 378
44. Pelli D, Robson J, Wilkins A. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 1988; 2: 187 – 203
45. Essock E, Fechtner R, Zimmerman T, et al. Binocular function in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1996; 5: 395 – 405, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
46. Rubin G. Reliability and sensitivity of clinical contrast sensitivity tests. Clin Vis Sci 1988; 2: 177 – 189
47. Reeves B C, Wood J M, Hill A R. The reliability of high and low contrast letter charts. Ophthalmol Physiol Opt 1993; 13 (1) 17 – 26
48. Bailey I, Lovie J. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am Acad Optom 1976; 53 (11) 740 – 744
49. Sparrow J M, Bron A J, Brown N AP, Ayliffe W, Hill A R. The Oxford clinical cataract classification and grading system. Int Ophthalmol 1986; 9: 207 – 225, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF]
50. Orme B. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequin, WAUSA 1998, Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, 530 West Fir St. 98382
51. Nelson-Quigg J, Cello K, Johnson C A. Predicting binocular visual field sensitivity from monocular visual field results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 2212 – 2221, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
52. Paulsson L E, Sjostrand J. Contrast sensitivity in the presence of glare light. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1980; 19: 401 – 406, [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
53. Weale R A. The senescence of human vision. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1992
54. Stigglebout A M, Kiebert G M, 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
55. Bennet K J, Torrance G W. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade off and standard gamble techniques. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, B. Spiker. Lippincott-Raven Publishers., Philadelphia, PA 1996, 2nd ed.
56. Sharma S, Oliver-Fernandez A, Bakal J, Hollands H, Brown G C, Brown M M. Utilities associated with diabetic retinopathy results from a Canadian sample. Br Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 259 – 261, [CROSSREF], [CSA]
57. Brice R. Conjoint Analysis: a review of conjoint paradigms and discussion of the outstanding design issues. Mark Res Today 1997; 25 (4) 260 – 266
58. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrock A. Prioritisation of clinical service developments in a teaching hospital: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen. 1997, Discussion Paper no. 08/97.
59. Hill A R, Aspinall P, Nelson P, Armbrecht A M. Lighting design and visual impairment. Proceedings of the CIE/ARUP Symposium on Visual Environment, J Schanda. The Royal Society, ViennaAustria 2002; 57 – 64