Utility and uncorrected refractive error

Nina Tahhan, Eric Papas, Timothy R. Fricke, Kevin Frick, Brien A. Holden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate utility (a preference-based quality of life [QoL] measure) associated with uncorrected refractive error (URE). Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: A cohort of 341 consecutive patients 40 to 65 years of age with refractive error and no ocular disease impairing vision worse than 20/25 (0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) in the better eye. Without vision correction, 30 had no vision impairment, 65 had only distance vision impairment (DVI), 97 had only near vision impairment (NVI), 112 had moderate amounts of both distance and near vision impairment (DNVI), and 37 had severe impairment (distance or near worse than 20/200 [>1.0 logMAR]) in the better eye. Methods: All participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination with refraction, aided and unaided visual acuity (VA) at 6 m and 40 cm, and ocular health assessment. Utilities were elicited for a number of scenarios using a standardized, face-to-face time trade-off (TTO) interview method. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measure was TTO utility for the participant's own uncorrected vision state. Utilities ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 = death and 1 = perfect vision, and were scaled to account for comorbidities so that 1 = perfect health (adjusted utility). Results: Unaided VA was 0.50±0.24 logMAR at distance in the DVI group, 0.43±0.17 logMAR at near in the NVI group, and 0.72±0.36 and 0.56±0.29 at distance and near, respectively, in the DNVI group. Adjusted utilities for the 3 groups were 0.82±0.16 in the DVI group, 0.81±0.17 in the NVI group, and 0.68±0.25 in the DNVI group. The DVI and NVI group utilities (adjusted and unadjusted) did not differ significantly (P = 0.73 and P = 0.77, respectively). The DNVI utility was significantly worse than that of the DVI and NVI groups (adjusted and unadjusted, P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1736-1744
Number of pages9
JournalOphthalmology
Volume120
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2013

Fingerprint

Refractive Errors
Visual Acuity
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Eye Diseases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Tahhan, N., Papas, E., Fricke, T. R., Frick, K., & Holden, B. A. (2013). Utility and uncorrected refractive error. Ophthalmology, 120(9), 1736-1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014

Utility and uncorrected refractive error. / Tahhan, Nina; Papas, Eric; Fricke, Timothy R.; Frick, Kevin; Holden, Brien A.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 120, No. 9, 09.2013, p. 1736-1744.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tahhan, N, Papas, E, Fricke, TR, Frick, K & Holden, BA 2013, 'Utility and uncorrected refractive error', Ophthalmology, vol. 120, no. 9, pp. 1736-1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014
Tahhan N, Papas E, Fricke TR, Frick K, Holden BA. Utility and uncorrected refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2013 Sep;120(9):1736-1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014
Tahhan, Nina ; Papas, Eric ; Fricke, Timothy R. ; Frick, Kevin ; Holden, Brien A. / Utility and uncorrected refractive error. In: Ophthalmology. 2013 ; Vol. 120, No. 9. pp. 1736-1744.
@article{b3009e7d0e034e5da8bcc287292e22dd,
title = "Utility and uncorrected refractive error",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate utility (a preference-based quality of life [QoL] measure) associated with uncorrected refractive error (URE). Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: A cohort of 341 consecutive patients 40 to 65 years of age with refractive error and no ocular disease impairing vision worse than 20/25 (0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) in the better eye. Without vision correction, 30 had no vision impairment, 65 had only distance vision impairment (DVI), 97 had only near vision impairment (NVI), 112 had moderate amounts of both distance and near vision impairment (DNVI), and 37 had severe impairment (distance or near worse than 20/200 [>1.0 logMAR]) in the better eye. Methods: All participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination with refraction, aided and unaided visual acuity (VA) at 6 m and 40 cm, and ocular health assessment. Utilities were elicited for a number of scenarios using a standardized, face-to-face time trade-off (TTO) interview method. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measure was TTO utility for the participant's own uncorrected vision state. Utilities ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 = death and 1 = perfect vision, and were scaled to account for comorbidities so that 1 = perfect health (adjusted utility). Results: Unaided VA was 0.50±0.24 logMAR at distance in the DVI group, 0.43±0.17 logMAR at near in the NVI group, and 0.72±0.36 and 0.56±0.29 at distance and near, respectively, in the DNVI group. Adjusted utilities for the 3 groups were 0.82±0.16 in the DVI group, 0.81±0.17 in the NVI group, and 0.68±0.25 in the DNVI group. The DVI and NVI group utilities (adjusted and unadjusted) did not differ significantly (P = 0.73 and P = 0.77, respectively). The DNVI utility was significantly worse than that of the DVI and NVI groups (adjusted and unadjusted, P",
author = "Nina Tahhan and Eric Papas and Fricke, {Timothy R.} and Kevin Frick and Holden, {Brien A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "1736--1744",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Utility and uncorrected refractive error

AU - Tahhan, Nina

AU - Papas, Eric

AU - Fricke, Timothy R.

AU - Frick, Kevin

AU - Holden, Brien A.

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - Purpose: To investigate utility (a preference-based quality of life [QoL] measure) associated with uncorrected refractive error (URE). Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: A cohort of 341 consecutive patients 40 to 65 years of age with refractive error and no ocular disease impairing vision worse than 20/25 (0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) in the better eye. Without vision correction, 30 had no vision impairment, 65 had only distance vision impairment (DVI), 97 had only near vision impairment (NVI), 112 had moderate amounts of both distance and near vision impairment (DNVI), and 37 had severe impairment (distance or near worse than 20/200 [>1.0 logMAR]) in the better eye. Methods: All participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination with refraction, aided and unaided visual acuity (VA) at 6 m and 40 cm, and ocular health assessment. Utilities were elicited for a number of scenarios using a standardized, face-to-face time trade-off (TTO) interview method. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measure was TTO utility for the participant's own uncorrected vision state. Utilities ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 = death and 1 = perfect vision, and were scaled to account for comorbidities so that 1 = perfect health (adjusted utility). Results: Unaided VA was 0.50±0.24 logMAR at distance in the DVI group, 0.43±0.17 logMAR at near in the NVI group, and 0.72±0.36 and 0.56±0.29 at distance and near, respectively, in the DNVI group. Adjusted utilities for the 3 groups were 0.82±0.16 in the DVI group, 0.81±0.17 in the NVI group, and 0.68±0.25 in the DNVI group. The DVI and NVI group utilities (adjusted and unadjusted) did not differ significantly (P = 0.73 and P = 0.77, respectively). The DNVI utility was significantly worse than that of the DVI and NVI groups (adjusted and unadjusted, P

AB - Purpose: To investigate utility (a preference-based quality of life [QoL] measure) associated with uncorrected refractive error (URE). Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: A cohort of 341 consecutive patients 40 to 65 years of age with refractive error and no ocular disease impairing vision worse than 20/25 (0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) in the better eye. Without vision correction, 30 had no vision impairment, 65 had only distance vision impairment (DVI), 97 had only near vision impairment (NVI), 112 had moderate amounts of both distance and near vision impairment (DNVI), and 37 had severe impairment (distance or near worse than 20/200 [>1.0 logMAR]) in the better eye. Methods: All participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination with refraction, aided and unaided visual acuity (VA) at 6 m and 40 cm, and ocular health assessment. Utilities were elicited for a number of scenarios using a standardized, face-to-face time trade-off (TTO) interview method. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measure was TTO utility for the participant's own uncorrected vision state. Utilities ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 = death and 1 = perfect vision, and were scaled to account for comorbidities so that 1 = perfect health (adjusted utility). Results: Unaided VA was 0.50±0.24 logMAR at distance in the DVI group, 0.43±0.17 logMAR at near in the NVI group, and 0.72±0.36 and 0.56±0.29 at distance and near, respectively, in the DNVI group. Adjusted utilities for the 3 groups were 0.82±0.16 in the DVI group, 0.81±0.17 in the NVI group, and 0.68±0.25 in the DNVI group. The DVI and NVI group utilities (adjusted and unadjusted) did not differ significantly (P = 0.73 and P = 0.77, respectively). The DNVI utility was significantly worse than that of the DVI and NVI groups (adjusted and unadjusted, P

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883810432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883810432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 23664469

AN - SCOPUS:84883810432

VL - 120

SP - 1736

EP - 1744

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 9

ER -