Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Aug;90(8):799-805.
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000005.

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to the effects of low vision rehabilitation

Alexis G Malkin  1 , Judith E Goldstein, Monica S Perlmutter, Robert W Massof; Low Vision Research Network Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to the effects of low vision rehabilitation

Alexis G Malkin et al. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: This study is an evaluation of the responsiveness of preference-based outcome measures to the effects of low vision rehabilitation (LVR). It assesses LVR-related changes in EQ-5D utilities in patients who exhibit changes in Activity Inventory (AI) measures of visual ability.

Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted on 77 low-vision patients out of a total of 764 patients in the parent study of "usual care" in LVR. Activity Inventory results were filtered for each patient to include only goals and tasks that would be targeted by LVR.

Results: The EQ-5D utilities have weak correlations with all AI measures but correlate best with AI goal scores at baseline (r = 0.48). Baseline goal scores are approximately normally distributed for the AI, but EQ-5D utilities at baseline are skewed toward the ceiling (median, 0.77). Effect size for EQ-5D utility change scores from pre- to post-LVR was not significantly different from zero. The AI visual function ability change scores corresponded to a moderate effect size for all functional domains and a large effect size for visual ability measures estimated from AI goal ratings.

Conclusions: This study found that the EQ-5D is unresponsive as an outcome measure for LVR and has poor sensitivity for discriminating low vision patients with different levels of ability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Histogram illustrating the distribution of the baseline utilities estimated from EQ-5D responses obtained prior to LVR services.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Histogram illustrating the distribution of the baseline visual ability in logits estimated from difficulty ratings of AI goals prior to LVR services.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Histogram illustrating distribution of EQ-5D utility change scores
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Histogram illustrating distribution of visual ability change scores estimated from difficulty ratings of AI goals.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Comparison of Cohen’s effect sizes for EQ-5D utility change scores, visual functional ability change scores estimated from subsets of AI task difficulty ratings (for reading, mobility, visual information processing, and visual motor functional domains), and visual ability change scores estimated from difficulty ratings of AI goals (error bars define 95% confidence intervals).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Payakachat N, Summers KH, Pleil AM, Murawski MM, Thomas J 3rd, Jennings K, Anderson JG. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res 2009;18:801–13. - PubMed
    1. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. Design of the low vision quality-of-life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:793–802. - PubMed
    1. Peacock S, Misajon R, Iezzi A, Richardson J, Hawthorne G, Keeffe J. Vision and quality of life: development of methods for the VisQoL vision-related utility instrument. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2008;15:218–23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1253–8. - PubMed
    1. Miller W, Robinson LA, Lawrence RS, Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee to Evaluate Measures of Health Benefits for Environmental Health and Safety Regulation Valuing Health for Regulatory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.

Publication types