IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0307691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Aline Lutz de Araujo
  • Bruna Stella Zanotto
  • Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges
  • Karen Brasil Ruschel
  • Taís de Campos Moreira
  • Felipe Cezar Cabral
  • Erno Harzheim
  • Marcelo Rodrigues Gonçalves
  • Roberto Nunes Umpierre
  • Fabiana Carvalho
  • Rodolfo Souza da Silva
  • Carisi Anne Polanczyk

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Aline Lutz de Araujo & Bruna Stella Zanotto & Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges & Karen Brasil Ruschel & Taís de Campos Moreira & Felipe Cezar Cabral & Erno Harzheim & Marcelo Rodrigues Gonçalves & Robert, 2024. "Utility index and vision-related quality of life in patients awaiting specialist eye care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307691
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307691
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307691&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0307691?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    2. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    3. Afschin Gandjour, 2014. "Capturing Disutility from Waiting Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 423-424, April.
    4. Bishai, David M. & Lang, Hui Chu, 2000. "The willingness to pay for wait reduction: the disutility of queues for cataract surgery in Canada, Denmark, and Spain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 219-230, March.
    5. Silviya Nikolova & Mark Harrison & Matt Sutton, 2016. "The Impact of Waiting Time on Health Gains from Surgery: Evidence from a National Patient‐reported Outcome Dataset," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 955-968, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anika Reichert & Rowena Jacobs, 2018. "The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1772-1787, November.
    2. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    3. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    4. Cristina Borra & Jerònia Pons-Pons & Margarita Vilar-Rodríguez, 2020. "Austerity, healthcare provision, and health outcomes in Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 409-423, April.
    5. Gutacker, Nils & Siciliani, Luigi & Cookson, Richard, 2016. "Waiting time prioritisation: Evidence from England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 140-151.
    6. Shimaa Elkomy & Graham Cookson, 2020. "Performance Management Strategy: Waiting Time in the English National Health Services," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 95-112, March.
    7. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 2003. "Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 207-219, May.
    8. Henry Bailey & Bram Roudijk & Ricky Brathwaite, 2025. "The EQ-5D-3L valuation study for Bermuda: using an on-line EQ-VT protocol," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(2), pages 275-297, March.
    9. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Callum Brindley & James Lomas & Luigi Siciliani, 2023. "The effect of hospital spending on waiting times," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(11), pages 2427-2445, November.
    11. Vohlonen, Ilkka & Ihalainen, Risto & Saltman, Richard B. & Karhunen, Taru & Palmunen, Juha & Kinnunen, Juha, 2004. "Improving health security: a pilot study from Finland linking disability and health expenditures," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 119-127, February.
    12. Alex J. Turner & Laura Anselmi & Yiu‐Shing Lau & Matt Sutton, 2020. "The effects of unexpected changes in demand on the performance of emergency departments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(12), pages 1744-1763, December.
    13. Bernard van den Berg & Amiram Gafni & France Portrait, 2013. "Attributing a monetary value to patients’ time: A contingent valuation approach," Working Papers 090cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Shuming Wang & Jun Li & Marcus Ang & Tsan Sheng Ng, 2024. "Appointment Scheduling with Delay Tolerance Heterogeneity," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 1201-1224, September.
    15. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    16. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    17. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    18. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    19. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    20. Huw Dixon & Luigi Siciliani, 2009. "Waiting Time Targets in Healthcare Markets: How Long Are We Waiting?," Discussion Papers 09/05, Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.