Subjective Quality of Vision Before and After Cataract Surgery
To investigate the effect of cataract surgery on subjective quality of vision.
The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire (Italian translation) was completed before and 3 months after cataract surgery in 4 groups of patients recruited from September through December 2010: first eye with ocular comorbidity, first eye without ocular comorbidity, second eye with ocular comorbidity, and second eye without ocular comorbidity. The questionnaire measures 3 aspects of quality of vision: frequency, severity, and bothersome nature of symptoms. The Lens Opacities Classification System (LOCS) III was used for cataract grading. Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were performed to compare QoV scores within and between groups. Spearman rank correlations (rs) were calculated to investigate the correlation between LOCS III and QoV symptoms.
Two hundred twelve patients (mean [SD] age, 74.2 [8.7] years) were recruited, and 212 eyes were included in the study. Improvements in QoV scores were found in all 4 groups (P < .05). There were no statistically significant (P > .05) differences among the 4 groups in the improvement in QoV scores or in the preoperative or postoperative scores. Blurred vision was correlated with posterior subcapsular cataract (rs = 0.420, P = .04).
Cataract in one or both eyes causes a similar loss in subjective quality of vision, which is also irrespective of the presence of ocular comorbidity. Posterior subcapsular cataract causes the specific symptom "blurred vision." Cataract surgery resulted in a large and comparable improvement in subjective quality of vision, regardless of ocular comorbidity and first or second eye surgery.
Available from: Nabin Paudel
- "Cataract causes loss in subjective quality of vision regardless of the presence of other ocular co-morbidity. Cataract surgery improves the objective measurements and subjective QoL and visual functioning . Hence, it is essential to create awareness that cataract surgery is life-enhancing and improves the QoL. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Visual impairment (VI) affects physical, psychological, and emotional well-being, and social life as well. The purpose of this exploratory study was to assess the psycho-social impact of VI on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among nursing home residents.
This cross-sectional study involved 272 residents of 60 years or older residing in seven nursing homes of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Comprehensive ocular examinations, including near and distance vision assessment and refractions were carried out. VI was defined as visual acuity (VA) less than 6/18 in the better eye. Residents were divided into two groups: one group did not have VI (in whom VA was greater than or equal to 6/18 in the better eye), and the other had VI (in whom VA was worse than 6/18 in the better eye).
Face-to-face interviews were conducted filling out a 36-item The Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (SF-36) questionnaire. The SF-36 questionnaire was scored according to the scoring algorithm SF-36 subscales.
The mean age of residents was 74.68 ± 8.19 years (range, 60–99 years) and the majority were female (78.68%). The mean composite score of SF-36 was 46.98 ± 13.08. VI detrimentally affected scores of both the physical and the mental components, but the impact of VI was slightly greater for the physical component than that for the mental component. There was a trend towards a lower composite score as well as each subscale score of the SF-36 in participants with VI than in those without VI.
VI has a negative effect on HRQoL. HRQoL is reduced among nursing home residents and the reduction in the HRQoL bears a positive association with VI.
BMC Health Services Research 08/2014; 14(14):345. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-345 · 1.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the interchangeability of the three subscales of the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire: Frequency, Severity and Bothersome. This will indicate if any of the subscales are predictive of one another and whether respondents need to complete all three subscales.
Data from four studies were pooled together, totaling 1930 completed questionnaires. Patient groups consisted of spectacle wearers, contact lens wearers, post-laser refractive surgery (including laser in situ keratomileusis, laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy, and photorefractive keratectomy surgeries for various refractive errors), patients with cataract, and patients having undergone lens implantation surgery (consisting of monofocal, multifocal, and pseudoaccommodative intraocular lenses). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) method was used to assess the interchangeability between the three subscales of the QoV questionnaire.
The mean difference, standard deviation of the differences, and the LoA for the Frequency versus Severity subscale was 2.8570, 6.784, and -10.4397 to 16.1537, respectively. The mean difference, standard deviation of the differences, and the LoA for the Frequency versus Bothersome subscale was 5.4674, 12.5768, and -19.1831 to 30.1179, respectively. The mean difference, standard deviation of the differences, and the LoA for the Severity versus Bothersome subscale was 2.6104, 9.4444, and -15.9006 to 21.1213, respectively.
The wide LoA found in this study indicate that the three subscales of the QoV questionnaire (Frequency, Severity and Bothersome.) measure different aspects of the latent trait, quality of vision. Users should continue to use all three subscales of the questionnaire to achieve a comprehensive assessment of subjective quality of vision.
Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 06/2013; 90(8). DOI:10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182993856 · 1.60 Impact Factor
Available from: Jyoti Khadka
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this article was to systematically review all the available ophthalmic patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments (questionnaires) that demonstrated interval measurement properties to identify the instruments with the highest psychometric quality for use in different eye diseases and conditions.
An extensive literature review was carried out to identify all existing ophthalmic PRO instruments. Instruments were then excluded if they did not have demonstrable interval measurement properties; the remaining instruments were reviewed. The quality of the following psychometric properties was assessed: content development (initial item development process), performance of the response scale, dimensionality (whether the instrument measures a single construct), measurement precision, validity (convergent, concurrent, discriminant, and known groups), reliability (test-retest), targeting (whether the items are appropriate [e.g., difficulty level] for the population), differential item functioning (whether subgroups of people respond differently to an item), and responsiveness.
The search identified 48 PRO instruments that demonstrated interval measurement properties, and these were relevant to nine applications: glaucoma, dry eye, refractive errors, cataract, amblyopia and strabismus, macular diseases, adult low vision, children low vision, and others. These instruments were evaluated against the psychometric property quality criteria and were rated for quality based on the number of criteria met.
This review provides a descriptive catalog of ophthalmic PRO instruments to inform researchers and clinicians on the choice of the highest-quality PRO instrument suitable for their purpose.
Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 07/2013; 90(8). DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000001 · 1.60 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.