4.5 Article

Measuring the impact of cataract surgery on generic and vision-specific quality of life

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 1405-1414

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0270-z

Keywords

Health-related quality of life; Cataract; Sensitivity; Vision

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [P01AG020679]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide and cause visual impairment for millions of adults in the United States. We compared the sensitivity of a vision-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measure to that of multiple generic measures of HRQOL before and at 2 time points after cataract surgery. Participants completed 1 vision-specific and 5 generic quality of life measures before cataract surgery, and again 1 and 6 months after surgery. Random effects modeling was used to measure changes over the three assessment points. The NEI-VFQ25 total score and all 11 subscales showed significant improvements during the first interval (baseline and 1 month). During the second interval (1-6 months post-surgery), significant improvements were observed on the total score and 5 of 11 NEI-VFQ25 subscales. There were significant increases in HRQOL during the first interval on some preference-based generic HRQOL measures, though changes during the second interval were mostly non-significant. None of the SF-36v2 (TM) or SF6D scales changed significantly between any of the assessment periods. The NEI-VFQ25 was sensitive to changes in vision-specific domains of QOL. Some preference-based generic HRQOL measures were also sensitive to change and showed convergence with the NEI-VFQ25, but the effects were small. The SF-36v2 (TM) and SF-6D did not change in a similar manner, possibly reflecting a lack of vision-related content. Studies seeking to document both the vision-specific and generic HRQOL improvements of cataract surgery should consider these results when selecting measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available