Quality of life associated with unilateral and bilateral good vision☆
Presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, Dallas, Texas, October 2000.
Received 30 March 2000; accepted 29 November 2000.
Abstract
Objective
To ascertain with patient preference-based methodology whether individuals with good visual acuity (20/20–20/25) in one eye have the same quality of life as individuals with good vision in both eyes.
Design
Cross-sectional comparative study.
Participants
Consecutive patients seen in comprehensive ophthalmic and vitreoretinal practices with known ocular disease and good visual acuity (20/20 or 20/25) in one or both eyes.
Methods
Standardized patient interview.
Main outcome measures
Time tradeoff and utility analysis values.
Results
The mean time tradeoff utility value in 81 patients with good visual acuity in one eye was 0.89 (standard deviation, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–0.93), whereas the mean value in 66 patients with good vision in both eyes was 0.97 (standard deviation, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.97–0.99). The difference between the means of the utility values in these two groups was significant using multiple linear regression (P = 0.001).
Conclusions
From the patient preference-based point of view, individuals with ocular disease and good visual acuity in both eyes appear to have a higher time tradeoff utility value, and thus a better associated quality of life, than those with good visual acuity in only one eye.
Manuscript no. 200195.
aCenter for Evidence-Based Health Care Economics, Flourtown, PennsylvaniaUSA
bThe Cataract and Primary Eye Care Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaUSA
cThe Retina Vascular Unit, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaUSA
dDepartments of Ophthalmology and Epidemiology, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Reprint requests to Melissa M. Brown, MD, MBA, Center for Evidence-Based Health Care Economics, 1107 Bethlehem Pike, Suite 210, Flourtown, PA 19031
☆ Supported in part by the Retina Research and Development Fund, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Principal’s Initiative Research Fund, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
ABSTRACT