Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in a Norwegian population of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration compared to a control population.


Journal

Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Aug 2019
Historique:
received: 06 08 2018
accepted: 19 07 2019
entrez: 16 8 2019
pubmed: 16 8 2019
medline: 18 10 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Although visual acuity and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are most widely used as outcomes in treatment of neovascular age-related Macular Degeneration (nAMD), patient reported outcome measures are increasingly recognized. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) was developed to capture the perceived visual function. Yet, evidence of psychometric performance in the target population is required. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of NEI-VFQ 25 in a Norwegian cohort of newly diagnosed nAMD patients followed with a Treat and Extend (T/E) protocol. Patients receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection treatment according to a T/E protocol completed a Norwegian translation of NEI-VFQ 25, EuroQoL Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS 5) at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. In addition, a control population completed the same questionnaires. Visual acuity was assessed with LogMar for best/treated eye. Validity testing comprised face validity by a 0-10 numeric rating scale about relevance of NEI-VFQ 25 as well as regression analyses and correlations between NEI-VFQ 25 and other relevant variables. Reliability was examined with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency were performed. Responsiveness, discriminatory power and predictive value were also explored. Number of respondents at baseline, after 3, 6 and 12 months was 197, 186, 176 and 168, respectively. The control population comprised 26 individuals. Face validity of NEI-VFQ 25 had a mean (SD) of 7.8 (1.7) (n = 84). NEI-VFQ was significantly correlated to visual acuity and PASS 5 as well as EQ-5D at baseline. Reliability (ICC) of the overall and sub scores for the patients/controls ranged from 0.49-0.97/0.59-0.97. Cronbach's alpha was 0.61-0.85. Discriminatory power was confirmed by significant differences of the overall score between controls and patients (P < 0.001). NEI-VFQ 25 indicates responsiveness showing overall score improved significantly (P ≤ 0.001) from baseline to 3 months. NEI-VFQ 25, general health and visual acuity at baseline were the strongest predictors for how patients reported vision after 6 months follow-up. NEI-VFQ 25 showed acceptable psychometric performance, which supports that the Norwegian version can be used to monitor patients treated for nAMD.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Although visual acuity and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are most widely used as outcomes in treatment of neovascular age-related Macular Degeneration (nAMD), patient reported outcome measures are increasingly recognized. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) was developed to capture the perceived visual function. Yet, evidence of psychometric performance in the target population is required. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of NEI-VFQ 25 in a Norwegian cohort of newly diagnosed nAMD patients followed with a Treat and Extend (T/E) protocol.
METHODS METHODS
Patients receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection treatment according to a T/E protocol completed a Norwegian translation of NEI-VFQ 25, EuroQoL Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS 5) at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. In addition, a control population completed the same questionnaires. Visual acuity was assessed with LogMar for best/treated eye. Validity testing comprised face validity by a 0-10 numeric rating scale about relevance of NEI-VFQ 25 as well as regression analyses and correlations between NEI-VFQ 25 and other relevant variables. Reliability was examined with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency were performed. Responsiveness, discriminatory power and predictive value were also explored.
RESULTS RESULTS
Number of respondents at baseline, after 3, 6 and 12 months was 197, 186, 176 and 168, respectively. The control population comprised 26 individuals. Face validity of NEI-VFQ 25 had a mean (SD) of 7.8 (1.7) (n = 84). NEI-VFQ was significantly correlated to visual acuity and PASS 5 as well as EQ-5D at baseline. Reliability (ICC) of the overall and sub scores for the patients/controls ranged from 0.49-0.97/0.59-0.97. Cronbach's alpha was 0.61-0.85. Discriminatory power was confirmed by significant differences of the overall score between controls and patients (P < 0.001). NEI-VFQ 25 indicates responsiveness showing overall score improved significantly (P ≤ 0.001) from baseline to 3 months. NEI-VFQ 25, general health and visual acuity at baseline were the strongest predictors for how patients reported vision after 6 months follow-up.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
NEI-VFQ 25 showed acceptable psychometric performance, which supports that the Norwegian version can be used to monitor patients treated for nAMD.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31412873
doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1203-0
pii: 10.1186/s12955-019-1203-0
pmc: PMC6692950
doi:

Substances chimiques

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Validation Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

140

Subventions

Organisme : Norsk Sykepleierforbund (NO)
ID : 15/0015

Références

Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Epilepsy Res. 2001 May;44(2-3):179-89
pubmed: 11325573
Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Jul;119(7):1050-8
pubmed: 11448327
Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(12):791-812
pubmed: 12236802
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;121(2):211-7
pubmed: 12583787
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Apr;121(4):531-9
pubmed: 12695250
J Glaucoma. 2003 Jun;12(3):213-20
pubmed: 12782838
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 May;122(5):758-66
pubmed: 15136325
Ophthalmology. 2004 Jul;111(7):1307-16
pubmed: 15234130
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Feb;139(2):271-9
pubmed: 15733988
Ophthalmology. 2005 Sep;112(9):1505-13
pubmed: 16019074
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;12(4):259-69
pubmed: 16033747
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005 Oct 26;3:65
pubmed: 16248900
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Dec 21;4:97
pubmed: 17184527
Qual Life Res. 2007 May;16(4):717-23
pubmed: 17268927
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Apr;143(4):679-80
pubmed: 17386275
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Jul;67(7):967-71
pubmed: 17965118
Can J Ophthalmol. 2007 Dec;42(6):836-43
pubmed: 18026200
BMC Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar 06;8:4
pubmed: 18325083
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008 Jul-Aug;71(4):540-6
pubmed: 18797665
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2008 Oct 12;8:28
pubmed: 18847506
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Aug;50(8):3629-35
pubmed: 19255158
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Jun;16(3):619-26
pubmed: 19712207
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Feb;51(2):712-7
pubmed: 19797233
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Feb 04;8:18
pubmed: 20132542
Acta Ophthalmol. 2010 Jun;88(4):e115-9
pubmed: 20346083
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 May 18;52(6):3354-9
pubmed: 21282568
Dan Med Bull. 2011 Jun;58(6):A4290
pubmed: 21651879
BMJ. 2013 Apr 12;346:f2125
pubmed: 23585065
Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:1325-32
pubmed: 23836961
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Jul 04;12:104
pubmed: 24989428
Ophthalmology. 2015 Jan;122(1):146-52
pubmed: 25227499
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Sep 15;13:142
pubmed: 26370558
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jan;123(1):51-9
pubmed: 26477842
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug;168:1-12
pubmed: 27131774
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):420-429
pubmed: 28292487
Acta Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug;95(5):460-463
pubmed: 28556485
Acta Ophthalmol. 2017 Jul;95(A105 Suppl):1-9
pubmed: 28686003
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Aug 14;15(1):157
pubmed: 28807029
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32
pubmed: 8263569
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Jun;46(6):529-34
pubmed: 8501479
N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar 28;334(13):835-40
pubmed: 8596551
J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Feb;49(2):135-40
pubmed: 8606314
Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Feb;116(2):227-33
pubmed: 9488276
Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Nov;116(11):1496-504
pubmed: 9823352

Auteurs

Elma Jelin (E)

Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital, Postboks 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. elmjel@ous-hf.no.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Postboks 1171 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. elmjel@ous-hf.no.

Torbjørn Wisløff (T)

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Morten C Moe (MC)

Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital, Postboks 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Postboks 1171 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway.

Turid Heiberg (T)

Department of Regional Research Support, Oslo University Hospital, Sogn Arena, POBox 4950, Nydalen, N-0424, Oslo, Norway.
Faculty of Health and Welfare, Østfold University College, POBox 700, N-1757, Halden, Norway.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH