Impact of Diabetic Retinopathy on Health-related Quality of Life in Iranian Diabetics
,
Abstract
Background: To extract utility values of diabetic retinopathy on a perfect health and perfect vision scales for Iranians with both types diabetes.
Methods: In this investigation, 150 untreated patients with diabetic retinopathy consecutively were examined and interviewed in Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran, a tertiary referral center in the Iranian health care system. Utility values based on patients-reported outcome measures, standard gamble, time trade off and visual analogue scale approaches, were estimated.
Results: Considering all three utility elicitation methods were valid, diabetic retinopathy patients, on average reported the 0.95 (±0.03), 0.85 (±0.15) and 0.80 (±0.30) standard policy scale utility according to standard gamble, TTO and VAT respectively. In all three-studied approach, diabetic retinopathy had more disutility in higher levels of disease and had more disutility in the presence of both maculopathy and vasculopathy compared with one of them. Evidence show that share of macular edema in imposing disutility was maximum in early stage and exponentially decreased with advancing the severity of diabetic retinopathy.
Conclusion: Study indicated utility scores in DR-experienced Iranian patients were highest with the SG and lowest with the VAT method. The proffered utility-elicitation method in Iranian patient populations could be the TTO approach. The novel model we employed for DR takes the effects of diabetic macular edema and vascularization into account separately, and can provide a better estimate of the QoL for these patients.
Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, Klein R, et al. (2004). Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol, 122(4):477-85.
Ciulla TA, Amador AG, Zinman B (2003). Diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema pathophy-siology, screening, and novel therapies. Diabetes Care, 26(9):2653-2664.
Javadi MA, Katibeh M, Rafati N, Dehghan MH, Zayeri F, Yaseri M, Ahmadieh H (2009). Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in Tehran province: a population-based study. BMC Ophthalmol, 9:12.
Brown GC (1999). Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, 97: 473–511.
Kymes SM, Lee BS (2007). Preference-based quality of life measures in people with visual impairment. Optom Vis Sci, 84(8): 809-816.
Lenert L, Kaplan RM (2000). Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care, 38(9 Suppl):II138-50.
Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med, 33(5): 375-384.
Tsevat J (2000). What do utilities measure? Med Care, 38(9 Suppl):II160-4.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996). Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ, 15(2): 209-231.
Drummond MF (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford university press. pp: 44-45.
Kaplan RM., Feeny D, Revicki DA (1993). Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qual Life Res, 2(6): 467-475.
Torrance GW (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis, 40(6): 593-603.
Vergel YB, Sculpher M (2008). Quality-adjusted life years. Pract Neurol, 8(3):175-182.
Gonzalez-Casanova I, Sarmiento OL, Gazmararian JA, Cunningham SA, Martorell R, Pratt M, Stein AD (2013). Comparing three body mass index classification systems to assess overweight and obesity in children and adolescents. Rev Panam SaludPublica, 33(5): 349-355.
Tung TH, Chen SJ, Lee FL, Liu JH, Lin CH, Chou P (2005). A community-based study for the utility values associated with diabetic retinopathy among type 2 diabetics in Kinmen, Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 68(3): 265-273.
Woodcock A, Bradley C, Plowright R, Kennedy-Martin T, Hirsch A (2004). The influence of diabetic retinopathy on quality of life: interviews to guide the design of a condition-specific, individualised questionnaire: the Ret DQoL. Patient Educ Couns, 53(3): 365-383.
Fenwick EK, Pesudovs K, Khadka J, Dirani M, Rees G, Wong TY, Lamoureux, EL (2012). The impact of diabetic retinopathy on quality of life: qualitative findings from an item bank development project. Qual Life Res, 21(10): 1771-82.
Dandona L, Dandona R (2006). Revision of visual im-pairment definitions in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases. BMC Med, 4(1):7.
McGraw, Kenneth O, Seok PW (1996). Forming in-ferences about some intraclass correlation coeffi-cients. Psychol methods, 1(1): 30-46.
Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G (1999). Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Oph-thalmol, 128(3): 324-330.
Lee BS, Kymes SM, Nease RF, Sumner W, Siegfried CJ, Gordon MO (2008). The impact of anchor point on utilities for 5 common ophthalmic diseases. Ophthalmology, 115(5): 898-903.
Shah VA, Gupta SK, Shah KV, Vinjamaram S, Chalam KV (2004). TTO utility scores measure quality of life in patients with visual morbidity due to diabetic retinopathy or ARMD. Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 11(1): 43-51.
Lee JE, Fos PJ, Zuniga MA, Kastl PR, Sung JH (2000). Assessing health-related quality of life in cataract patients: the relationship between utility and health-related quality of life measurement. Qual Life Res, 9(10): 1127-1135.
Sharma S, Oliver-Fernandez A, Bakal J, Hollands H, Brown GC, Brown MM (2003). Utilities associated with diabetic retinopathy: results from a Canadian sample. Br J Ophthalmol, 87(3): 259-261.
Hirai FE, Tielsch JM, Klein BE, Klein R (2011). Ten-year change in vision-related quality of life in type 1 diabetes: Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology, 118(2):353-358.
Bozzani FM, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M, Kuper H (2012). A comparison of the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and TTO utility values to changes in vision and perceived visual function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol, 12(1):43.
Wee HL, Li SC, Xie F, Zhang XH, Luo N, Feeny D, Thumboo J (2008). Validity, Feasibility and Accep-tability of Time Trade‐Off and Standard Gamble Assessments in Health Valuation Studies: A Study in a Multiethnic Asian Population in Singapore. Value Health, 11(Suppl 1):S3-10.
Stavem K (1999). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual Life Res, 8(1-2): 45-54.
Morimoto T, Fukui T (2002). Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol, 12(2): 160-178.
Djalalov S, Rabeneck L, Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Hilsden R, Hoch JS (2014). A review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer utilities. Med Decis Making, 34(6): 809-818.
Torrance GW, Feeny D (1989). Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 5(4): 559-75.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M (1998). Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 80(2):189-94.
Tijhuis GJ, Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JMW, Vlieland TV (2000). Value of the time trade off method for measuring utilities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis, 59(11): 892-897.
Fenwick EK, Pesudovs K, Khadka J, Dirani M., Rees G, Wong TY, Lamoureux EL (2012). The impact of diabetic retinopathy on quality of life: qualitative findings from an item bank development project. Qual Life Res, 21(10): 1771-1782.
Milne A, Johnson JA, Tennant M, Rudnisky C, Dryden DM (2012). Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy. Technology assessment report. Agency for healthcare research and quality, Maryland 20850.
Mohammadi SF, Saeedi-Anari G, Alinia C, Ashrafi E, Daneshvar R, Sommer A (2014). Is Screening for Glaucoma Necessary? A Policy Guide and Analysis. J Ophthalmic Vis Res, 9(1): 3-6.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 46 No 1 (2017) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Diabetic retinopathy Macular edema Time trade off | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
