Utility index and vision-related quality of life in patients awaiting specialist eye care

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 12;19(8):e0307691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307691. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to ascertain utility and vision-related quality of life in patients awaiting access to specialist eye care. A secondary aim was to evaluate the association of utility indices with demographic profile and waiting time.

Methods: Consecutive patients that had been waiting for ophthalmology care answered the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). The questionnaire was administered when patients arrived at the clinics for their first visit. We derived a utility index (VFQ-UI) from the patients' responses, then calculated the correlation between this index and waiting time and compared utility across demographic subgroups stratified by age, sex, and care setting.

Results: 536 individuals participated in the study (mean age 52.9±16.6 years; 370 women, 69% women). The median utility index was 0.85 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.70-0.92; minimum 0.40, maximum 0.97). The mean VFQ-25 score was 70.88±14.59. Utility correlated weakly and nonsignificantly with waiting time (-0.05, P = 0.24). It did not vary across age groups (P = 0.85) or care settings (P = 0.77). Utility was significantly lower for women (0.84, IQR 0.70-0.92) than men (0.87, IQR 0.73-0.93, P = 0.03), but the magnitude of this difference was small (Cohen's d = 0.13).

Conclusion: Patients awaiting access to ophthalmology care had a utility index of 0.85 on a scale of 0 to 1. This measurement was not previously reported in the literature. Utility measures can provide insight into patients' perspectives and support economic health analyses and inform health policies.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Ophthalmology
  • Quality of Life*
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Vision, Ocular / physiology
  • Waiting Lists

Grants and funding

This study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, through the Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde (PROADI-SUS). Grants were provided to Hospital Moinhos de Vento and to the Fundação de Apoio à Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (FAURGS). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.