rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:766-772 doi:10.1136/bjo.2006.104679
  • Clinical science
    • Extended reports

Quality of life and relative importance: a comparison of time trade-off and conjoint analysis methods in patients with age-related macular degeneration

  1. P A Aspinall1,
  2. A R Hill1,
  3. B Dhillon1,
  4. A M Armbrecht1,
  5. P Nelson2,
  6. C Lumsden2,
  7. E Farini-Hudson2,
  8. R Brice3,
  9. A Vickers3,
  10. P Buchholz3,4
  1. 1Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2Visual Impairment Research Group, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
  3. 3Adelphi Research Group, Bollington, Cheshire, UK
  4. 4Allergan Europe, Pforzheimersts, Ettlingen, Germany
  1. Correspondence to: Professor P A Aspinall Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 3AZ, Scotland, UK; p.a.aspinall{at}sbe.hw.ac.uk
  • Accepted 18 December 2006
  • Published Online First 17 January 2007

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the relative priorities in quality of life (QoL) in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Methods: Measures of visual function, QoL and utility associated with visual loss were obtained from 122 patients with AMD classified according to macular morphology. The two methods of utility assessment were time trade-off (TTO) and conjoint analysis (CA), which have been recommended by the UK’s National Institute of Clinical Excellence as techniques for the assessment of healthcare priorities.

Results: Results show that the two methods for assessing utility are poorly related: TTO relates moderately to visual function and disease severity but CA does not. CA identified two different subgroups of patients: one with outdoor mobility and the other with reading as their main priority.

Conclusion: Further work is needed and caution required in interpreting data obtained using these methodologies for determining their relative importance in vision-related QoL studies.

Footnotes

  • ↵i The five attributes of daily living were identified from previous studies as being relatively independent (see appendix). These were: “difficulty reading or seeing fine detail”, “difficulty pouring liquids and performing household chores”, “difficulty with glare from bright lights”, “difficulty getting about outside the house alone” and “difficulty recognising faces”. The first two attributes in the preceding list were excluded from the three-attribute version for patients with poorer visual acuity who were unable to read 36-point print. Three levels of difficulty were used to describe each attribute (ie, “no difficulties”, “a few difficulties” and “a lot of difficulties”).

  • Published Online First 17 January 2007

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. bjo.2006.104679v1
    2. 91/6/766 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.