TY - JOUR
T1 - A Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Patients Who Undergo Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery
AU - Glaucoma Outcomes Survey Collaborative Study Group
AU - Hays, Ron D.
AU - Tarver, Michelle E.
AU - Eydelman, Malvina
AU - Spaeth, George L.
AU - Parke, David W.
AU - Singh, Kuldev
AU - Nguyen, Don
AU - Saltzmann, Robert M.
AU - Smith, Oluwatosin
AU - Shaw, My Le
AU - Rosenberg, Lisa
AU - Seibold, Leo
AU - Teymoorian, Savak
AU - Provencher, Lorraine M.
AU - Bicket, Amanda K.
AU - Arora, Nitika
AU - Junk, Anna K.
AU - Chaya, Craig
AU - Salim, Sarwat
AU - Kuo, Debbie
AU - Weiner, Asher
AU - Zhang, Ze
AU - Rhee, Brian Francis Douglas
AU - McMillan, Brian
AU - Choo, Clara
AU - Garris, Winston
AU - Noecker, Rob
AU - Fellman, Ronald
AU - Caprioli, Joseph
AU - Vold, Steven
AU - Pasquale, Louis
AU - Cui, Qi
AU - Mbagwu, Michael
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Purpose: To develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the impact of glaucoma and treatment, including minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). Design: Observational study before and after concomitant cataract and Food and Drug Administration-approved implantable MIGS device surgery. Setting: Survey administration was on a computer, iPad, or similar device. Patient Population: 184 adults completed the baseline survey, 124 a survey 3 months after surgery, and 106 the 1-month test-retest reliability survey. The age range was 37 to 89 (average age = 72). Most were female (57%), non-Hispanic White (81%), and had a college degree (56%). Main Outcome Measures: The Glaucoma Outcomes Survey (GOS) assesses functional limitations (27 items), vision-related symptoms (7 items), psychosocial issues (7 items), and satisfaction with microinvasive glaucoma surgery (1 item). These multiple-item scales were scored on a 0 to 100 range, with a higher score indicating worse health. Results: Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.93, and 1-month test-retest intraclass correlations ranged from 0.83 to 0.92 for the GOS scales. Product-moment correlations among the scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.60. Improvement in visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to the 3-month follow-up was significantly related to improvements in GOS functional limitations (r = 0.18, P = .0485), vision-related symptoms (r = 0.19, P = .0386), and psychosocial concerns (r = 0.18, P = .0503). Responders to treatment ranged from 17% for vision-related symptoms to 48% for functional limitations. Conclusions: This study supports using the GOS for ophthalmic procedures such as MIGS. Further evaluation of the GOS in different patient subgroups and clinical settings is needed.
AB - Purpose: To develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the impact of glaucoma and treatment, including minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). Design: Observational study before and after concomitant cataract and Food and Drug Administration-approved implantable MIGS device surgery. Setting: Survey administration was on a computer, iPad, or similar device. Patient Population: 184 adults completed the baseline survey, 124 a survey 3 months after surgery, and 106 the 1-month test-retest reliability survey. The age range was 37 to 89 (average age = 72). Most were female (57%), non-Hispanic White (81%), and had a college degree (56%). Main Outcome Measures: The Glaucoma Outcomes Survey (GOS) assesses functional limitations (27 items), vision-related symptoms (7 items), psychosocial issues (7 items), and satisfaction with microinvasive glaucoma surgery (1 item). These multiple-item scales were scored on a 0 to 100 range, with a higher score indicating worse health. Results: Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.93, and 1-month test-retest intraclass correlations ranged from 0.83 to 0.92 for the GOS scales. Product-moment correlations among the scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.60. Improvement in visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to the 3-month follow-up was significantly related to improvements in GOS functional limitations (r = 0.18, P = .0485), vision-related symptoms (r = 0.19, P = .0386), and psychosocial concerns (r = 0.18, P = .0503). Responders to treatment ranged from 17% for vision-related symptoms to 48% for functional limitations. Conclusions: This study supports using the GOS for ophthalmic procedures such as MIGS. Further evaluation of the GOS in different patient subgroups and clinical settings is needed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199182294&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.05.031
DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.05.031
M3 - Article
C2 - 38880374
AN - SCOPUS:85199182294
SN - 0002-9394
JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology
ER -