Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/6151
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTosh, J-
dc.contributor.authorBrazier, J-
dc.contributor.authorEvans, P-
dc.contributor.authorLongworth, L-
dc.date.accessioned2012-01-20T11:51:44Z-
dc.date.available2012-01-20T11:51:44Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationValue in Health, 15(1): 118 - 127, Jan-Feb 2012en_US
dc.identifier.issn1098-3015-
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301511015610en
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/6151-
dc.descriptionThis is an Open Access Article provided by the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. The Article can be accessed from the links below - Copyright @ 2012 Elsevieren_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: This review examines generic preference-based measures and their ability to reflect health-related quality of life in patients with visual disorders. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken to identify clinical studies of patients with visual disorders where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted to assess the validity and responsiveness of the measures. A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken due to the heterogeneity between different studies. Results: There was considerable heterogeneity in the 31 studies identified in terms of patient characteristics, visual disorders, and outcomes reported. Vision loss was associated with a reduction in scores across the preference-based measure, but the evidence on validity and responsiveness was mixed. The EQ-5D health-related assessment instrument's performance differed according to condition, with poor performance in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy. The more limited evidence on the HUI-3 instrument found it performed best in differentiating between severity groups of patients with glaucoma, AMD, cataracts, and diabetic retinopathy. One study reported data on the SF-6D instrument and showed it was able to differentiate between patients with AMD. Conclusions: The performance of the EQ-5D in visual disorders was mixed. The HUI-3 seemed to perform better in some conditions, but the evidence on this and SF-6D is limited. More head to head comparisons of these three measures are required. The new five-level version of EQ-5D may do better at the milder end of visual function.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis project was funded by the Medical Research Council as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme (G0901486).en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectHealth-related quality of lifeen_US
dc.subjectQuality of lifeen_US
dc.subjectQALYsen_US
dc.subjectUtilitiesen_US
dc.subjectVisionen_US
dc.titleA review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disordersen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.002-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/Health Economics Research Group-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/Health Economics Research Group/HERG-
Appears in Collections:Publications
Brunel OA Publishing Fund
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.