Measurement of health‐related quality of life with glaucoma: validation of the Glau‐QoL<sup>©</sup> 36‐item questionnaire

Béchetoille, A; Arnould, B; Bron, Alain M.; Baudouin, Christophe; Renard, Jean-Paul; Sellem, E; Brouquet, Y; Denis, Philippe; Nordmann, Jean‐Philippe; Rigeade, M.-C.; Bassols, Ana Margareth Siqueira; Benmedjahed, Khadra; Guillemin, Isabelle; Rouland, Jean‐François

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00999.x

Cited by 84 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, none of them demonstrated statistically justified response scales. As a glaucoma-specific QoL-tool, the Glaucoma QoL Questionnaire (Glau-QoL) 45 demonstrated good developmental characteristics (except statistical evidence for the rating scale) and strong validity evidence, while the VisQoL 43,44 demonstrated high quality scores as a measurement tool across diverse ophthalmic conditions, yet additional Rasch-analysis might be mandatory to strengthen validity evidence of both instruments.…”

Section: Pro's Addressing Qolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, further adaptation and testing could improve instruments with potential, such as the GQL-15, IMQ and the GSI [24][25][26][27][28] Within the QoL-measures, both the Glau-QoL and VisQoL had an extensive and theory based development process, but were generated and validated according to classical techniques. [43][44][45] Applying additional Rasch-analysis could strengthen their content and validity. The NEI-VFQ, which is a widely used QoL-instrument, has initially never been tested on its dimensionality, [35][36][37] which is a major flaw in its development.…”

Section: Eyementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review

Vandenbroeck

Geest

Zeyen

et al. 2011

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this review was to summarize literature in view of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for glaucoma and provide guidance on how outcomes are best assessed based on evidence about their content and validity. A systematic literature review was performed on papers describing the developmental process and/or psychometric properties of glaucoma or vision-specific PRO-instruments. Each of them was assessed on their adherence to a framework of quality criteria. Fifty-three articles were identified addressing 27 PRO-instruments. In all, 18 PRO's were developed for glaucoma and 9 for diverse ophthalmologic conditions. Seven instruments addressed functional status, 11 instruments quality of life and 9 instruments disease and treatment-related factors. Most of the instruments demonstrated only partially adherence to predefined quality standards. The tools for assessing functional status were of poor quality, while the Glaucoma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Vision Quality of Life Index were well-developed QoL measures, yet only validated using classical techniques. The Rasch-scaled QoL-tools, IVI and VCM1 need to improve their item-content for glaucoma patients. The questionnaires to measure adherence should improve their validity and the Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intra Ocular Pressure pops out as the highest quality tool for measuring topical treatment side effects. This review revealed that most PRO-instruments demonstrated poor developmental quality, more specifically a lack of conceptual framework and item generation strategies not involving the patients' perspective. Psychometric characteristics were mostly tested using classical validation techniques.

show abstract

Section: Pro's Addressing Qolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eyementioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review

Vandenbroeck

Geest

Zeyen

et al. 2011

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4,12,14 This is problematic because, as has been frequently demonstrated with Rasch analysis, too few items result in inadequate measurement precision. [26][27][28] Rasch analysis is a psychometric assessment tool, which provides a more comprehensive insight into the psychometric properties of a PRO instrument.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Over the years, several glaucoma-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed. [3][4][5][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] While these instruments measure various QOL domains such as activity limitation, symptoms, convenience of eye-drop use, treatment of side effects and satisfaction; each instrument typically measures only one domain. 7,24 For instance, the Glaucoma Quality of Life (GQL-15) measures only activity limitation, 3,25 the Treatment Satisfaction Survey of Intra-ocular Pressure (TSS-IOP) was developed to assess treatment satisfaction and side effects of glaucoma medication, 13 and the Comparison of Ophthalmic Medication for Tolerability (COMTOL) measures tolerability and compliance of glaucoma eyedrops.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Content for the Glaucoma-specific Item Bank to Measure Quality-of-life Parameters

Khadka¹,

McAlinden²,

Craig

et al. 2015

Journal of Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

250Text: 3998 2 Abstract Purpose: Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) have become essential clinical trial end points. However, a comprehensive, multi-dimensional, patient-relevant and precise glaucoma-specific PRO instrument is not available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify content for a new, glaucoma-specific, quality of life (QOL) item bank. Results: A total of 737 unique items (extant items from PRO instruments, 247; qualitative articles, 14 items; focus groups and semi-structured interviews, 476 items) were identified. These items were classified into 10 QOL domains. Four criteria (item redundancy, item inconsistent with domain definition, item content too narrow to have wider applicability, and item clarity) were used to remove and refine the items. After the cognitive interviews, the final minimally representative item-set had a total of 342 unique items belonging to Methods Conclusion:The systematic content identification process identified ten QOL domains which were important to patients with glaucoma. The majority of items were identified from the patient-specific focus groups and semi-structured interviews suggesting that the existing PRO instruments do not adequately address QOL issues relevant to individuals with glaucoma.

show abstract

“…Examples include the VF-14 for patients with cataract or the Glau QOL 36 for patients with glaucoma. 20,21 Although some fields have no conditionspecific instruments, others, such as glaucoma, have seen a rapid growth in available instruments. In 2011,…”

Section: Prom Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%