Novel artificial eye service evaluation using patient reported outcome measures.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
28
06
2020
accepted:
29
09
2020
revised:
26
09
2020
pubmed:
15
10
2020
medline:
10
7
2021
entrez:
14
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This service evaluation explores patient reported outcomes from patients provided with high definition ocular prostheses (artificial eyes). Validated patient questionnaires (FACE-Q, DAS24 and HADS) were utilised to evaluate patient experiences of their new ocular prosthesis. 10 patients were included in the service evaluation, which was conducted between December 2018 and September 2019. Descriptive analysis of the mean and 95% CI was undertaken for all questionnaires. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for FACE-Q questionnaires. Correlations were significant when factor loading is at α > 0.4. A questionnaire response rate of 80% was achieved (n = 8). PCA analysis showed the number of variables tested could be reduced. Two principal components (PC1 and PC2) had very good to excellent internal consistency between variables with factor loading (α = 0.7-0.9). PC1 contained questionnaires 1-7, all of which were highly correlated. PC2 contained question number 8 with a factor loading of α = 0.8. This indicates good reliability, validity and responsiveness. We hope to demonstrate the importance of service evaluations with respect to rapidly evolving technological advances in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and imaging modalities. Further feasibility and full clinical studies are required to confirm the positive results of the novel artificial eye service we have evaluated with respect to the traditional approach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This service evaluation explores patient reported outcomes from patients provided with high definition ocular prostheses (artificial eyes).
METHODS
METHODS
Validated patient questionnaires (FACE-Q, DAS24 and HADS) were utilised to evaluate patient experiences of their new ocular prosthesis. 10 patients were included in the service evaluation, which was conducted between December 2018 and September 2019. Descriptive analysis of the mean and 95% CI was undertaken for all questionnaires. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for FACE-Q questionnaires. Correlations were significant when factor loading is at α > 0.4.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A questionnaire response rate of 80% was achieved (n = 8). PCA analysis showed the number of variables tested could be reduced. Two principal components (PC1 and PC2) had very good to excellent internal consistency between variables with factor loading (α = 0.7-0.9). PC1 contained questionnaires 1-7, all of which were highly correlated. PC2 contained question number 8 with a factor loading of α = 0.8. This indicates good reliability, validity and responsiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We hope to demonstrate the importance of service evaluations with respect to rapidly evolving technological advances in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and imaging modalities. Further feasibility and full clinical studies are required to confirm the positive results of the novel artificial eye service we have evaluated with respect to the traditional approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33051621
doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-01216-z
pii: 10.1038/s41433-020-01216-z
pmc: PMC8225665
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2030-2037Références
NHS Expenditure by Rachael Harker. Documents NHS expenditure since 1948; summary of the structure of the NHS and how it is financed. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/#:~:text=Expenditure%20on%20the%20NHS%20has,established%20on%205th%20July%201948.&text=The%20average%20annual%20expenditure%20increase,the%20history%20of%20the%20NHS . Accessed 10th Aug. 2020.
Weszl M, Rencz F, Brodszky V. Is the trend of increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures in medical device studies the sign of shift towards value-based purchasing in Europe? Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20 Suppl 1:133–40.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01070-1
U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Value and use of patientreported outcomes (PROs) in assessing efects of medical devices. CDRH strategic priorities 2016–2017. https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/Value-and-Use-of-Patient-Reported-Outcomes-%28PROs%29-in-Assessing-Effects-of-Medical-Devices.pdf Accessed 10th Aug. 2020.
Lubkin V, Sloan S. Enucleation and psychic trauma. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;8:259Y62.
McBain HB, Ezra DG, Rose GD, Newman SP. The Psychosocial impact of living with an ocular prosthesis. Orbit. 2014;33:39–44.
doi: 10.3109/01676830.2013.851251
Song JS, Oh J, Baek SH. A survey of satisfaction in an ophthalmic patients wearing ocular prosthesis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244:330–5.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-005-0037-0
Walshaw E, Zoltie T, Bartlett P, Gout T. Manufacture of a high definition ocular prosthesis. Br J Oral Maxillofacial Surg. 2018;56:893–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.08.016
Carr T, Moss T, Harris D. The DAS24: a short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59) to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Br J Health Psych. 2005;10:285–98.
doi: 10.1348/135910705X27613
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL. The science behind quality-of life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:98e–106e.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31819565c1
Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, Scott AM, Wilkins EG, Cano SJ, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1819–27.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a3f361
Klassen AF, Cano SJ and Pusic AL. A PROM for cosmetic facial procedures: developing the conceptual framework. International Society for Quality of Life Research meeting abstracts. QLR J, 2009:A-68, Abstract 1614.
Klassen A, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg. 2010;26:303–9.
doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1262313
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193–205.
doi: 10.1023/A:1015291021312
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Grotting JC, Baker SB, Carruthers J, Carruthers A, et al. FACE-Q eye module for measuring patient-reported outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19:7–14.
doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1018
Aggarwal H, Kumar P, Singh SV. Modified technique to improve fabrication and outcome of definitive orbital prosthesis. Orbit. 2016;35:66–8. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
doi: 10.3109/01676830.2015.1078379
Murthy R, Umesh M. Fabricating a custom made ocular prosthesis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2015;63:807–8.
doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.171536
Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishers; 1978.