Quality of Life and Visual Efficiency: fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Soo Han Kim; Hun Gu Choo; Ie Na Yoon

doi:10.3341/jkos.2016.57.3.485

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(3) > 1010537

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Choo, and Yoon: Quality of Life and Visual Efficiency: fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(3):485-491.

Published online: 3 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.3.485

Quality of Life and Visual Efficiency: fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Soo Han Kim, MD, Hun Gu Choo, MD, Ie Na Yoon, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Ie Na Yoon, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, #20 Ilsan-ro, Wonju 26426, Korea, Tel: 82-33-741-1346, Fax: 82-33-741-1150, E-mail: bswhitey@hanmail.net

Received 20 March 2015 Revised 19 October 2015 Accepted 24 November 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the association of visual efficiency and quality of life using data from the fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V).

Methods

The present study included 5,244 glaucoma or glaucoma suspect subjects who completed a visual acuity test, visual field test and health-related questionnaire from the KNHANES V. Visual efficiency was calculated using best corrected visual acuity and visual field test. Quality of life was assessed with EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D). Visual efficiency was compared with best corrected vision of the better eye to evaluate the relationship with quality of life. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and partial correlations analysis were used to analyze the associations between factors.

Results

Both visual efficiency and best corrected visual acuity of the better eye were significantly different with all EQ-5D parameters (p < 0.005). After controlling for age, gender, income, education, spouse and house ownership, visual efficiency showed a positive correlation coefficient of +0.040 (p = 0.006) with the quality of life and the best corrected visual acuity of the better eye showed negative correlation coefficient of −0.044 (p = 0.002) with the quality of life.

Conclusions

Visual efficiency was associated with the quality of life. Not only visual acuity but also visual efficiency would be a valuable parameter when considering the quality of life. Further studies are needed to evaluate non-glaucomatous populations.

Keywords: EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D), Quality of life, The fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V), Visual acuity, Visual efficiency

References

1. Hwang HB, Yoon MJ. 2013 Geriatric Statistics [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;p. c2013. [cited. 2013. 9. 30.] Available from:. http://kostat.go.kr.

2. Feng CS, Yi K. Research on the quality of life of glaucoma patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:1868–77.

3. Lee JY, Cho HK, Kee C. Assessment of the vision-specific quality of life using binocular esterman visual field in glaucoma patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:1567–72.

4. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Lawrence MG, et al. Improved visual function and attenuation of declines in health-related quality of life after cataract extraction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112:1419–25.

5. Rim HT, Lee DM, Chung EJ. Visual acuity and quality of life: KNHANES IV. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:46–52.

6. McBride DE. Injury of the eye, disability evaluation and principles of treatment of compensable injuries. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott;1968. p. 465–79.

7. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33:337–43.

8. Nam HS, Kim KY, Kwon SS. Research report for estimated weight for Quality of Life Survey (EQ-5D). Cheongju: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007.

9. Klein BE, Klein R, Lee KE, Cruickshanks KJ. Performance-based and self-assessed measures of visual function as related to history of falls, hip fractures, and measured gait time. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105:160–4.

10. Klein BE, Moss SE, Klein R, et al. Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population: the Beaver Dam eye study. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:644–50.

11. Kulkarni KM, Mayer JR, Lorenzana LL, et al. Visual field staging systems in glaucoma and the activities of daily living. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 154:445–51.e3.

12. Medeiros FA, Gracitelli CP, Boer ER, et al. Longitudinal changes in quality of life and rates of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122:293–301.

13. Skalicky SE, Goldberg I. Are we ready to assess quality of life routinely in our glaucoma patients? Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2010; (315):5–7.

14. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26:410–20.

15. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004; 13:873–84.

16. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012; 15:708–15.

Figure 1.

Mean visual efficiency and best corrected visual acuity on EQ −5D questionnaire and scatter plot between visual efficiency and best corrected visual acuity of the better eye. (A) Mobility. (B) Self-care. (C) Usual activities. (D) Anxiety/depression. (E) Pain discomfort. (F) Scatter plot. ‘1’ means no problem in performance, ‘2’ means mild disability or disturbance, and ‘3’ means moderate to severe disability or disturbance. EQ −5D = EuroQoL 5D. ^*Statistically significant, left scale is visual efficiency in percentage, right scale is log MAR of best corrected visual acuity of the better eye.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics in study population

	Variables	Number	Percent (%)
Age	Mean ± SD	56.53 ± 13.71
Sex	Male	2,352	44.9
Personal income	Low	1,246	24.1
	Mid-low	1,296	25.1
	Mid-high	1,324	25.7
	High	1,294	25.1
Household income	Low	1,143	22.2
	Mid-low	1,316	25.5
	Mid-high	1,302	25.2
	High	1,399	27.1
Occupation	Administrator	574	11.4
	Specialist	307	6.1
	Business occupation	606	12.0
	Service related	506	10.0
	Sales related	454	9.0
	Farming and fishing	511	10.1
	Technicians and mechanics	2,092	41.4
Education	Elementary school or lower	1,581	31.3
	Middle school	697	13.8
	High school	1,547	30.6
	University or higher	1,230	24.3
Spouse	With	4,160	83.6

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

SD = standard deviation.

Table 2.

Partial correlation analysis between visual efficiency and best corrected visual acuity and EQ-5D index when adjusted with age, sex, personal and family income level, educational status, occupational status, existence of spouse

EQ-5D index	Correlation coefficient	p-value
Visual efficiency	0.040	0.006
BCVA	−0.044	0.002

EQ-5D = EuroQoL 5D; BCVA = best corrected visual acuity of better eye.

TOOLS

Similar articles