3.8 Article

Specific Health-Related Quality of Life Concerns in Children with Intermittent Exotropia

期刊

STRABISMUS
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 145-151

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09273972.2012.735338

关键词

Intermittent exotropia; Quality of life; Strabismus

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EY015799, EY018810]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York
  3. Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota
  4. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [U10EY018810, R01EY015799] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the frequency of specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns in children with intermittent exotropia (XT) using the Intermittent Exotropia Questionnaire (IXTQ). Methods: Eighty children with intermittent XT (aged 5 to < 17 years), plus one parent for each child, completed the Child and Proxy IXTQ respectively. Each item was scored from 0 to 100 (worst to best HRQOL). Mean scores were calculated for each item and items were ranked from lowest to highest impact (worst HRQOL). Analysis was repeated for sub-groups of 5-to < 8-year-olds (n = 46) and 8-to < 17-year-olds (n = 34). Results: Highest impact Child IXTQ items were: It bothers me that I have to shut one eye when it is sunny, I worry about my eyes,and It bothers me because I have to wait for my eyes to clear up.Highest impact Proxy IXTQ items were: It bothers my child because he/she has to shut one eye when it is sunnyand My child worries about his/her eyes.Lowest impact Child and Proxy items were My eyes make it hard to make friendsand Kids tease me because of my eyes.Ranking of items was similar for younger and older children. Conclusions: The greatest HRQOL concerns for children with intermittent XT were shutting one eye when sunny, waiting for their eyes to clear up, and worrying about their eyes. Items related to teasing and making friends were of least concern. Evaluation of HRQOL concerns using the IXTQ may be helpful in the clinical care of individual patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据