Vision utilities in Italy and the United States: Comparison of time tradeoff vision utilities

Abstract

Background/Aims:

To compare time tradeoff vision utilities from two developed Western countries to ascertain whether these vision-related, quality-of-life preferences are similar.

Methods:

Time tradeoff utilities were acquired from ophthalmology patient populations with ophthalmic pathologic conditions by personal interview in Italy and the United States using a reliable and previously validated, standardized questionnaire.

Results:

Data from 47 consecutive Italian participants and 325 consecutive American participants were compared. The populations were matched for gender, age, and ophthalmic pathologic conditions. The utilities for the various vision sub-cohort levels, characterized according to vision in the better-seeing eye for the Italian/American cohorts were as follows: (1) 20/20 sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.82/0.91 (p = 0.10); (2) 20/25–20/30 sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.79/0.86, (p = 0.05); (3) 2040–20/100 sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.76/0.74 (p = 0.70); and (4) 20/200 or less sub-cohort, Italian/American mean utilities = 0.66/0.58 (p = 0.58).

Conclusion:

Vision-related quality of life, as measured by time tradeoff utilities, was similar in Italian and American ophthalmic populations. This information is relevant when comparing quality of life and cost-utility analyses across international borders.

Keywords

Time tradeoff vision-related utilities age-related macular degeneration quality of life

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

GC.

Vision and quality of life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1999; 97: 473–512.

Brown

Sharma

Evidence-based to value-based medicine. Chicago, IL: AMA Press, 2005, pp. 1–324.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85(3): 327–331.

Sharma

Brown

, et al. Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86(5): 493–496.

Hollands

Lam

Pater

, et al. Reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol 2001; 36(4): 202–209.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. The reproducibility of ophthalmic utility values. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2001; 99: 199–203; discussion 203.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120(4): 481–484.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. Quality-of-life and systemic comorbidities in patients with ophthalmic disease. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86(1): 8–11.

Real

Brown

, et al. The effect of comorbidities upon ocular and systemic health-related quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 2008; 92(6): 770–774.

10.

Stein

Brown

, et al. Quality of life with macular degeneration. Perceptions of patients, clinicians and community members. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87(1): 8–12.

11.

Sharma

Oliver-Fernandez

Bakal

, et al. Utilities associated with diabetic retinopathy: results from a Canadian sample. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87(3): 259–261.

12.

Kobelt

Health economics, economic evaluation and glaucoma: a review. J Glaucoma 2002; 11: 531–539.

13.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. Quality of life associated with visual loss: a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 1076–1081.

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blindness and vision impairment, https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/ToolsTemplates/EntertainmentEd/Tips/Blindness.html (accessed 18 January 2019).

15.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol 2003; 48(2): 204–223.

16.

Brown

Sharma

, et al. A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes. Int Ophthalmol 2001; 24(3): 123–127.

17.

Landy

Stein

Brown

, et al. Patient, community and clinician perceptions of the quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus. Med Sci Monit 2002; 8(8): CR543–CR548.

18.

Kaplan

Bush

Berry

CC.

Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976; 11: 478–507.

19.

Kaplan

RM.

The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD 2005; 2: 91–97.

20.

Creative Research Systems. Sample size calculator, https://surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, (accessed 6 September 2018).

21.

Brown

Sharma

Difference between ophthalmologists’ and patient perceptions of quality-of-life associated with age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol 2000; 35: 27–32.

22.

Lien

Tam

, et al. Impact of country-specific EQ-5D-3L tariffs on the economic value of systemic therapies used in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol 2015; 22(6): e443–e452.

23.

van Wijck

Bosch

Hunink

MG.

Time-tradeoff values and standard-gamble utilities assessed during telephone interviews versus face-to-face interviews. Med Decis Making 1998; 18(4): 400–405.