Special questionnaires assessing the quality of life in patients with glaucoma
https://doi.org/10.30629/0023-2149-2022-100-7-8-368-376
Abstract
The signifi cance of assessing the quality of life (QoL) in patients with glaucoma among those with other ophthalmic diseases has been established based on the analysis of literature. Due to the high risk of complete loss of vision, it is important to stop the progression of glaucoma. To do this, developing disorders of visual functions are monitored by the level of QoL and disability. The literature emphasizes the importance of adequate control over the course of the disease and off ers various methods for assessing QoL. Nevertheless, the goal of fi nding more sensitive methods of the earliest clinical manifestations detection, remains unresolved. This problem is important for monitoring adherence to treatment, since the progressive vision deterioration due to glaucoma, aff ects QoL, so such monitoring is widely used in chronic diseases, which include glaucoma. Understanding the impact of the disease on the life of patients allows one to choose the right treatment strategy, improve cooperation with the patient and his compliance, that is, compliance with the doctor’s recommendations.
About the Authors
E. B. Parova
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Parova Elizaveta B.
117997, Moscow
A. V. Kuroedov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); Central Military Clinical Hospital named after P.V. Mandrykа of the Ministry of Defense of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kuroedov Aleksandr V.
117997, Moscow; 107014, Moscow
References
1. Parova E.B., Kuroedov A.V. Advantages and disadvantages of modern questionnaires for patients with glaucoma. Modern Technologies in Ophthalmology. 2020;3(34):34–35. (In Russian).
2. Aprelev A.E., Barbos Yu.A., Mukhanko I.J. The eff ectiveness of neuroprotective therapy in patients with glaucoma. Saratov J. Scientifi c Medical. 2018;14(4):828–831. (In Russian).
3. Ovechkin I.G., Malyshev A.V., Karapetov G.Yu. et al. Methods of assessing the patient’s quality of life in ophthalmological practice. Modern Optometry. 2015;7(87):34–39. (In Russian).
4. Korelina V.E., Gazizova I.R. Age-related aspects of adherence to glaucoma therapy. Eff ective Pharmacotherapy. 2021; 17(37):34–39. (In Russian) DOI 10.33978/2307-3586-2021-17-37-34-39
5. Radysh I.V. Identifi cation of latent factors of health-related quality of life as a methodological approach to its assessment and correction: Textbook. I.V. Radysh, O.N. Ragozin, E. Y. Shalamova. Moscow, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN), 2017 (In Russian).
6. Cahill M.T., Banks A.D., Stinnett S.S. et al. Vision-related quality of life in patients with bilateral severe age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(1):152–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.036
7. Jacobs J.M., Hammerman-Rozenberg R., Maaravi Y. et al. The impact of visual impairment on health, function and mortality. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2005;17:281–286. DOI: 10.1007/BF03324611
8. Nutheti R., Shamanna B.R., Nirmalan P.K. et al. Impact of impaired vision and eye disease on quality of life in Andhra Pradesh. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47:4742–4748. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0020
9. Testa M.A., Simonson D.C. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996;334:835–840. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199603283341306
10. Makogon S.I., Makogon A.S. The infl uence of various models of therapeutic training of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma on the quality of life. Clinical Gerontology. 2018;24(7–8):12–19. (In Russian) DOI: 10.26347/1607-2499201807-08012-019
11. Novik A.A., Ionova T.I., Kaind P. The concept of quality of life research in medicine. St. Petersburg: Albi, 1999. (In Russian).
12. Aaronson N.K. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methodologic issues. Control Clin. Trials. 1989;10(4):195–208. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90058-5.
13. Bullinger M., Power M.J., Aaronson N.K. et al. Creating and evaluating cross-cultural instruments. In: Spilker B., editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers. 1996:659–669.
14. Calvert M., Blazeby J., Altman D.G. et al. CONSORT PRO Group. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309(8):814–822. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.879
15. Pollard W.E., Bobbitt R.A., Bergner M. et al. The sickness impact profi le: reliability of a health status measure. Med. Care. 1976; 14(2):146–155. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-197602000-00004
16. Snyder C.F., Aaronson N.K., Choucair A.K. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual. Life Res. 2012;21(8):1305– 1314. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x
17. Syrkin A.L., Pechorina E.A., Drinitsina S.I. Validation of methods for assessing the quality of life in patients with stable angina pectoris. Clinical Medicine. 2001;79(1)1:22–25. (In Russian).
18. Kurysheva N.I., Sharova G.A., Belikova E.I. Investigation of the role of the choroid and lens in the development of primary closure of the anterior chamber angle: assessment of the quality of life of patients. Glaucoma. 2022;21(1):3–13. (In Russian). DOI: 10.53432/2078-4104-2022-21-1-3-13
19. Sakhnov S.N. Quality of life of glaucoma patients as an integral criterion of treatment effectiveness. Healthcare of the Russian Federation. 2018;62(5):234– 238. (In Russian). DOI: 10.18821/0044-197Х-2018-62-5-234-238
20. Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 1995;24:61–63. DOI: 10.3109/03009749509099285
21. Lee B.L., Gutierrez P., Gordon M. et al. The Glaucoma Symptom Scale. A brief index of glaucoma-specifi c symptoms. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1998;116:861–866. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.116.7.861
22. Spaeth G., Walt J., Keener J. Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2006;141:3–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.075
23. Broman A.T., Munoz B., West S.K. et al. Psychometric properties of the 25-item NEI-VFQ in a Hispanic population: Proyecto VER. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2001;42:606-613.
24. Lin J.C., Chie W.C. Psychometric validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2010;16:619–626. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01253.x
25. Nordmann J.P., Viala M., Sullivan K. et al. Psychometric Validation of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) French version: in a population of patients treated for ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:197–206. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200422030-00005
26. Rossi G.C., Milano G., Tinelli C. The Italian version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: translation, validity, and reliability. J. Glaucoma. 2003;12:213–220. DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200306000-00006
27. Simao L.M., Lana-Peixoto M.A., Araujo C.R. et al. The Brazilian version of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: translation, reliability and validity. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2008;71(4):540–546. DOI: 10.1590/S0004-27492008000400014
28. Toprak A.B., Eser E., Guler C. et al. Cross-validation of the Turkish version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:259– 269. DOI: 10.1080/09286580590967763
29. Gabdrakhmanova A.F., Kurbanov S.A. Clinical and functional signifi cance of quality of life indicators in primary open-angle glaucoma. National J. Glaucoma. 2015;14(4):29–35. (In Russian)
30. Khadka J., Pesudovs K., McAlinden C. et al. Reengineering the glaucoma quality of life-15 questionnaire with rasch analysis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(9):6971–6977. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-7423
31. Skalicky S.E., Fenwick E., Martin K.R. et al. Impact of age-related macular degeneration in patients with glaucoma: understanding the patients’ perspective. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2016;44(5):377–387. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.12672
32. Goh R.L.Z., Fenwick E., Skalicky S.E. The Visual Function Questionnaire. J. Glaucoma. 2016; 25(10): 822-829. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000441
33. Mahdaviazad H., Roustaei, N., Masoumpour, M.B. et al. Psychometric properties of the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 questionnaire: Use of explanatory factor analysis. J. Cur. Ophthalmol. 2018;30(3):211– 216. DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2017.12.005
34. Barber B.L., Strahlman E.R., Laibovitz R. et al. Validation of a Questionnaire for Comparing the Tolerability of Ophthalmic Medications. Ophthalmology. 2020;104(2):334–342. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(97)30314-5
35. Musch D., Lichter P., Guire K. et al. The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study Study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(4),653–662. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(99)90147-1
36. Nelson P., Aspinall P., Papasouliotis O. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J. Glaucoma. 2003;12(2):139–150. DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200304000-00009
37. Viswanathan A.C., Mcnaught A., Poinoosawmy D. et al. Severity and Stability of Glaucoma: Patient Perception Compared With Objective Measurement. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1999;117:450–454. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.117.4.450
38. Iester M., Zingirian M. Quality of life in patients with early, moderate and advanced glaucoma. Eye. 2002;16(1):44–49. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700036
39. Walt J.G., Rendas-Baum R., Kosinski M. et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the Glaucoma Symptom Identifi er. J. Glaucoma. 2011;20(3):148–159. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181e07970
40. Tan K.L., Fhun L.C., Yaakub M. et al. Anxiety and Visual Field Assessment Reliability in Glaucoma Patients. Asian J. Med. Health. 2017;7(3):1–8. DOI: 10.9734/AJMAH/2017/36396
41. Atkinson M. J., Stewart W.C., Fain J.M. et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:1–67. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-67
42. Béchetoille A., Arnould B., Bron A. et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life with glaucoma: validation of the Glau-QoL 36-item questionnaire. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2008;86(1):71–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00999.x
43. Musch D.C., Tarver M.E., Goren M.J., Janz N.K. Development of an 18-Item Measure of Symptom Burden in Patients With Glaucoma From the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study’s Symptom and Health Problem Checklist. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(12):1345–1351. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.4574
44. Sleath B., Blalock S.J., Robin A. Development of an instrument to measure glaucoma medication self-effi cacy and outcome expectations. Eye. 2009;24(4):624–631. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.174
45. Regnault A., Viala-Danten M., Gilet H., Berdeaux G. Scoring and psychometric properties of the Eye-Drop Satisfaction Questionnaire (EDSQ), an instrument to assess satisfaction and compliance with glaucoma treatment. BMC Ophthalmol. 2010;10(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2415-10-1/
Review
For citations:
Parova E.B., Kuroedov A.V. Special questionnaires assessing the quality of life in patients with glaucoma. Clinical Medicine (Russian Journal). 2022;100(7-8):368-376. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30629/0023-2149-2022-100-7-8-368-376
Views:
720
Email this article 