Development of the Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire

Nathan Johnson, Elaheh Shirneshan, Cheryl D Coon, Jonathan Stokes, Ted Wells, J Jason Lundy, David A Andrae, Christopher J Evans, Joanna Campbell, Nathan Johnson, Elaheh Shirneshan, Cheryl D Coon, Jonathan Stokes, Ted Wells, J Jason Lundy, David A Andrae, Christopher J Evans, Joanna Campbell

Abstract

Introduction: Presbyopia is a progressive, age-related visual condition that is characterized by reduced ability to focus on near/close objects, causing impacts on individuals' daily function and health-related quality of life. The Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire (PICQ) is a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that assesses presbyopia impact and use of coping behaviors among presbyopic individuals.

Methods: To document the impacts of presbyopia and associated coping behaviors, concept elicitation (CE) interviews were conducted with 20 presbyopic participants. Results from the CE interviews were used to develop draft items for additional testing. Following item generation, the draft PICQ was cognitively debriefed with 20 participants. Data from a phase 2 controlled clinical trial were used for psychometric analyses of the PICQ. The PICQ was administered at site visits throughout a 28-day treatment period. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methods were used to guide the development of the scoring algorithm. The reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups methods), and responsiveness (Guyatt's responsiveness statistic [GRS]) of the PICQ scores were evaluated. Finally, anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to inform thresholds for interpreting meaningful within-patient change.

Results: CE interviews identified the important and relevant presbyopia-related impacts and coping behaviors and 22 items were drafted and cognitively debriefed. Following minor revisions and item addition/deletion, a version of the PICQ including 23 items was subjected to psychometric testing. The analysis sample included 151 participants. The CFA established two PICQ domain scores, Coping and Impact, on 0-to-4 scales that demonstrate good model fit (root mean square error of approximation = 0.06, comparative fit index = 0.98, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.98, standardized root mean square = 0.07). Cronbach's alphas for the Coping and Impact scores were 0.89 and 0.84, respectively. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.77 for Coping and 0.67 for Impact. The pattern of results assessing construct validity was acceptable for the PICQ Coping and Impact scores, with the magnitude of correlations and effect sizes generally meeting a priori expectations. The corresponding GRS effect sizes for the PICQ Coping scores were -1.23 (i.e., large) for Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and -0.72 (i.e., medium) for uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). The GRS effect sizes for the PICQ Impact scores were -0.60 (i.e., medium) for PGIC and -0.35 (i.e., small) for UNVA. Across three sets of anchor-based analyses for interpreting individual-level change, a responder threshold of -1.00 was identified for both PICQ Coping and PICQ Impact scores.

Conclusions: The totality of evidence from the qualitative and quantitative research establishes that the PICQ scores produced are valid and reliable measures of presbyopia impacts and coping behaviors that are important and relevant for assessing presbyopia treatment outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.

Gov identifier: NCT02780115; date of registration May 19, 2016.

Keywords: Age-related farsightedness; Content validity; Patient-reported outcome; Presbyopia; Psychometric analysis; Qualitative research.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Final PICQ conceptual framework. PICQ Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire. © 2021 AbbVie. All rights reserved
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
eCDF of PICQ Coping by PGIC using change scores from Day 1 Hour 0 to Day 28 Hour 1. Note. Change is computed as Day 28 Hour 1 minus Day 1 Hour 0; negative scores indicate improvement. eCDF, empirical cumulative distribution functions, PGIC Patient Global Impression of Change, PICQ Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
eCDF of PICQ Coping by change in UNVA using change scores from Day 1 Hour 0 to Day 28 Hour 1. Note. Change is computed as Day 28 Hour 1 minus Day 1 Hour 0; negative scores indicate improvement. eCDF empirical cumulative distribution functions, PICQ Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire, UNVA uncorrected near visual acuity
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
eCDF of PICQ Impact by PGIC using change scores from Day 1 Hour 0 to Day 28 Hour 1. Note. Change is computed as Day 28 Hour 1 minus Day 1 Hour 0; negative scores indicate improvement. eCDF empirical cumulative distribution functions, PGIC Patient Global Impression of Change, PICQ Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire, UNVA uncorrected near visual acuity
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
eCDF of PICQ Impact by change in UNVA using change scores from Day 1 Hour 0 to Day 28 Hour 1. Note. Change is computed as Day 28 Hour 1 minus Day 1 Hour 0; negative scores indicate improvement. eCDF empirical cumulative distribution functions, PICQ Presbyopia Impact and Coping Questionnaire, UNVA uncorrected near visual acuity

References

    1. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;68:124–143. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.09.004.
    1. Bourne RRA, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(9):e888–e897. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0.
    1. Fricke TR, Tahhan N, Resnikoff S, et al. Global prevalence of presbyopia and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia: systematic review, meta-analysis, and modelling. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(10):1492–1499. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.013.
    1. Frick KD, Joy SM, Wilson DA, Naidoo KS, Holden BA. The global burden of potential productivity loss from uncorrected presbyopia. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1706–1710. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.014.
    1. Wolffsohn JS, Leteneux-Pantais C, Chiva-Razavi S, et al. Social media listening to understand the lived experience of presbyopia: systematic search and content analysis study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e18306–e18306. doi: 10.2196/18306.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist. 2009;74(235):65132–65133.
    1. Mangione CM. Development of the 25-list-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(7):1050. doi: 10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050.
    1. Berry S, Mangione CM, Lindblad AS, McDonnell PJ. Development of the National Eye Institute refractive error correction quality of life questionnaire. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(12):2285–2291. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.08.021.
    1. Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L, Lindblad AS, Spritzer KL, McDonnell PJ. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(12):2292–2301. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2002.07.001.
    1. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Gupta N, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Shah S. Development of a questionnaire to assess the relative subjective benefits of presbyopia correction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(1):74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.07.032.
    1. Pesudovs K, Gothwal VK, Wright T, Lamoureux EL. Remediating serious flaws in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(5):718–732. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.019.
    1. McAlinden C, Skiadaresi E, Moore J, Pesudovs K. Subscale assessment of the NEI-RQL-42 Questionnaire with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(8):5685. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-67951.
    1. Turner-Bowker DM, Lamoureux RE, Stokes J, et al. Informing a priori sample size estimation in qualitative concept elicitation interview studies for clinical outcome assessment instrument development. Value Health. 2018;21(7):839–842. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.014.
    1. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley: Sociology Press; 1967.
    1. Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
    1. Katsikatsou M, Moustaki I, Yang-Wallentin F, Jöreskog KG. Pairwise likelihood estimation for factor analysis models with ordinal data. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2012;56(12):4243–4258. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2012.04.010.
    1. Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2012.
    1. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
    1. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 3. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2004.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Nunnally J, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
    1. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. West Sussex: Wiley; 2007.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research applications to practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. New York: Routledge; 1988.
    1. Csaky KG, Richman EA, Ferris FL. Report from the NEI/FDA ophthalmic clinical trial design and endpoints symposium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(2):479. doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-1132.
    1. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
    1. Coon CD, Cook KF. Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores. Qual Life Res. 2017;27(1):33–40. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1616-3.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. 2019. .

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi