Constructing Item Banks for Measuring Quality of Life in Refractive Error

Kandel, Himal; Khadka, Jyoti; Fenwick, Eva; Shrestha, Mohan Krishna; Sharma, Sadhana; Sharma, Bharti; Kafle, K.; Kharal, Anish; Kaiti, Raju; Dhungana, Purushottam; Nepal, B P; Thapa, Suman; Lamoureux, Ecosse L.; Pesudovs, Konrad

doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001246

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, clinical, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics influence QOL and therefore results vary between populations and groups. 73,75 Despite their limitations, existing PROMs have proven valuable in evaluating QOL impacts of myopia and demonstrate that the impact of myopia on QOL is significant. The detrimental impacts of myopia have been observed in diverse aspects of daily living, including activity limitation, economic wellbeing, emotional well-being, symptoms, and social wellbeing.…”

Section: Patient-reported Outcomes -Quality Of Life and Myopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The detrimental impacts of myopia have been observed in diverse aspects of daily living, including activity limitation, economic wellbeing, emotional well-being, symptoms, and social wellbeing. 66,73,[75][76][77] Generally, poorer QOL has been demonstrated for uncorrected refractive error/poor vision and high myopia as well as with complications associated with myopia. In a group of 16-year-old patients, myopia was an independent risk factor for poorer QOL for both distance and near vision, whereas hyperopia was not associated with any difficulty.…”

Section: Patient-reported Outcomes -Quality Of Life and Myopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

IMI Impact of Myopia

Sankaridurg

Tahhan

Kandel

et al. 2021

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

213

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global burden of myopia is growing. Myopia affected nearly 30% of the world population in 2020 and this number is expected to rise to 50% by 2050. This review aims to analyze the impact of myopia on individuals and society; summarizing the evidence for recent research on the prevalence of myopia and high myopia, lifetime pathological manifestations of myopia, direct health expenditure, and indirect costs such as lost productivity and reduced quality of life (QOL). The principal trends are a rising prevalence of myopia and high myopia, with a disproportionately greater increase in the prevalence of high myopia. This forecasts a future increase in vision loss due to uncorrected myopia as well as high myopia-related complications such as myopic macular degeneration. QOL is affected for those with uncorrected myopia, high myopia, or complications of high myopia. Overall the current global cost estimates related to direct health expenditure and lost productivity are in the billions. Health expenditure is greater in adults, reflecting the added costs due to myopia-related complications. Unless the current trajectory for the rising prevalence of myopia and high myopia change, the costs will continue to grow. The past few decades have seen the emergence of several novel approaches to prevent and slow myopia. Further work is needed to understand the life-long impact of myopia on an individual and the cost-effectiveness of the various novel approaches in reducing the burden.

show abstract

Section: Patient-reported Outcomes -Quality Of Life and Myopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Patient-reported Outcomes -Quality Of Life and Myopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

IMI Impact of Myopia

Sankaridurg

Tahhan

Kandel

et al. 2021

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

Self Cite

213

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[38][39][40][41] Although such technological advances may attempt to satisfy the complexity of presbyopic treatment requirements, the development of age-related conditions such as dry eye may hinder patients' lens-wearing experience in terms of vision and comfort. 42,43 Females are more likely than males to wear contact lenses for presbyopia, owing in part to cosmetic reasons. 39,44 In a survey of 14,690 patients in the UK, women were twice as likely to have a presbyopic contact lens correction, 45 and an Irish study found that 65% of the patients (N=97) undergoing surgical compensation of presbyopia and additional ametropia were female.…”

Section: Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 38–41 Although such technological advances may attempt to satisfy the complexity of presbyopic treatment requirements, the development of age-related conditions such as dry eye may hinder patients’ lens-wearing experience in terms of vision and comfort. 42 , 43 …”

Section: Presbyopic Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presbyopia – A Review of Current Treatment Options and Emerging Therapies

Katz¹,

Karpecki²,

Dorca³

et al. 2021

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presbyopia is a common age-related vision disorder characterized by a progressive inability to focus on near objects. If uncorrected or under-corrected, presbyopia can significantly impact patients' quality of life. Presbyopia represents an area of considerable unmet need due to its rising prevalence worldwide as the population ages, the high proportion of under-treated individuals in some parts of the world, and the limitations of currently available corrective methods. Progressive or bifocal spectacles are associated with peripheral blur, a restricted visual field and impaired depth perception, which have been linked to an increased risk of falls in the elderly. Contact lens options can be difficult to maintain due to the development of age-related dry eye symptoms and reduced manual dexterity. Other corrective methods involve surgical interventions that modify the optics of the cornea, replace the crystalline lens, or attempt to restore active accommodation. While patients undergoing surgery report satisfactory outcomes post-operatively, many of them eventually require reading glasses. Non-invasive therapies with novel mechanisms of action are currently being investigated; these include miotic agents and UNR844, a lipoic acid choline ester. In this narrative review, available evidence on presbyopia prevalence, quality of life impact and risk factors are described, with a focus on observational studies in nonclinical settings. The diagnosis pathway and patient journey in presbyopia are outlined, and various treatment options are analyzed. The data reviewed herein reveals significant gaps in the provision of vision correction for this common condition, with a paucity of effective, non-invasive treatment options broadly accessible to presbyopic individuals.

show abstract

“…The authors reported that while the NEI Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument (NEI-RQL) was the most frequently used, it did not provide valid measurement, whereas a number of other instruments, including the Quality of Vision, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire, and Quality of Life questionnaire (QIRC) had been constructed using Rasch analysis and were suited to measurement of visual symptoms, activity limitations, and QoL, respectively. They subsequently developed a pool of refractive error items from patient groups in Australia (n=337 items) and Nepal (n=308 items), spanning 12 QoL domains and are working to develop a CAT system suitable for use in both high- and low-income country settings 88. An RCT using PROMs as the primary outcome measure to compare ready-made spectacles and custom-made spectacles for the correction of refractive error in adults in India found that both result in comparable patient satisfaction and large gains in visual function and QoL, with the custom-made spectacles achieving a small but statistically significant higher QoL outcome 89…”

Section: Impact Of Proms By Ophthalmic Subspecialtymentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice</p>

Braithwaite¹,

Calvert²,

Gray³

et al. 2019

PROM

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review article considers the rising demand for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in modern ophthalmic research and clinical practice. We review what PROMs are, how they are developed and chosen for use, and how their quality can be critically appraised. We outline the progress made to develop PROMs in each clinical subspecialty. We highlight recent examples of the use of PROMs as secondary outcome measures in randomized controlled clinical trials and consider the impact they have had. With increasing interest in using PROMs as primary outcome measures, particularly where interventions have been found to be of equivalent efficacy by traditional outcome metrics, we highlight the importance of instrument precision in permitting smaller sample sizes to be recruited. Our review finds that while there has been considerable progress in PROM development, particularly in cataract, glaucoma, medical retina, and low vision, there is a paucity of useful tools for less common ophthalmic conditions. Development and validation of item banks, administered using computer adaptive testing, has been proposed as a solution to overcome many of the traditional limitations of PROMs, but further work will be needed to examine their acceptability to patients, clinicians, and investigators.

show abstract

Constructing Item Banks for Measuring Quality of Life in Refractive Error

Cited by 17 publications

References 56 publications

IMI Impact of Myopia

IMI Impact of Myopia

Presbyopia – A Review of Current Treatment Options and Emerging Therapies

<p>The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About