Estimating patient‐reported outcomes for glaucoma management: A cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Aim To identify important explanatory variables of four patient‐reported outcomes (PROs): vision‐related quality of life (VRQoL), preference‐based health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), social support and community integration and depressive symptoms. Methods Cross‐sectional study conducted at one ophthalmic practice in a hospital setting. Patients with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect (n = 250) were sequentially recruited. Patients with language restrictions were excluded. Data were collected through medical chart reviews and face‐to‐face interviews. The PROs were measured using validated tools. Candidate models for predicting PROs from explanatory variables were constructed using linear and logistic regression, as well as classification and regression trees. Through leave‐one‐out cross‐validation, the performance of each model was assessed in terms of mean absolute error. Results Use of mobility aids, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), income, and living arrangements were most predictive of VRQoL, social support, and community integration. Use of mobility aids was also most predictive of the presence of depressive symptoms, and BCVA with preference‐based HRQoL. Conclusion Although promising associations were discovered, the models based on commonly collected clinical variables had limited ability to accurately predict individual patient PROs. Thus, although this study identifies clinical and demographic variables that are most predictive of PROs, routine collection of PROs in clinical practice may be necessary to obtain a complete picture of the quality of life of glaucoma patients.

The Quality of Life of Seniors with Eye Diseases during COVID‐19

“…Te MAE of the VRQoL model in the current study is slightly higher than the models in the previous study suggesting that the model in the current study could be nearly as predictive as the previous models. However, the multivariable model for social support and community integration in the current study had an even lower value of MAE as compared to the study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30] indicating that it may be more predictive of the outcome.…”

“…Finally, having an education of more than high school signifcantly (p � 0.033) changes the CIQ score on average by −1.79 (95% CI: −3.44, −0.15). 13 demonstrate that the backward stepwise regression models for VRQoL and social support and community integration had generally similar MAEs as compared to a similar previous study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30]. Te MAE of the VRQoL model in the current study is slightly higher than the models in the previous study suggesting that the model in the current study could be nearly as predictive as the previous models.…”

“…A previous study by Tomas et al [35] investigated the preference-based HRQoL among patients with glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Another previous study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30] investigated the preference-based HRQoL among patients with glaucoma. Both studies reported relatively high mean utility values from 0.89 to 0.94 which is like the value of 0.88 found in the current study using the same TTO technique.…”

“…Furthermore, the study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30] found that living arrangements and the use of a mobility aid were signifcant predictors of VRQoL. Additionally, the study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30] found age, sex, income, living arrangement, and use of mobility aids to be predictors of social support and community integration.…”

“…Furthermore, the study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30] found that living arrangements and the use of a mobility aid were signifcant predictors of VRQoL. Additionally, the study by Uruthiramoorthy et al [30] found age, sex, income, living arrangement, and use of mobility aids to be predictors of social support and community integration. Te diference seen between the predictor variables in the two studies may be due to a multitude of factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic conditions, diferent time periods, general eye disease patients versus glaucoma only patients, or the senior patient population.…”