Construct Validity of Inherited Retinal Disease-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
1
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Dimensions
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Autores
JAYASUNDERA, K. Thiran
ABUZAITOUN, Rebhi O.
POPOVA, Lilia
ANDREWS, Chris A.
LACY, Gabrielle D.
FRESCO, David M.
MUSCH, David C.
Citação
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, v.248, p.116-126, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
PURPOSE: To evaluate aspects of construct validity of the Michigan Retinal Degeneration Questionnaire (MRDQ) and the Michigan Vision-related Anxiety Ques-tionnaire (MVAQ). center dot METHODS: Subjects with a clinical diagnosis of an inherited retinal disease (IRD) were recruited prospec-tively and 3 tests were used to assess construct valid-ity: the ability to distinguish different IRD phenotypes; test a priori hypothesis of an association between vision-related anxiety and vision-related disabilities; and corre-late MRDQ and MVAQ with the National Eye Insti-tute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25) and the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to com-pare different phenotypes for mean domain scores for MRDQ/MVAQ. Pearson correlations were performed be-tween; Cone-Function Anxiety and Central Vision con-trolling for better eye visual acuity, Rod-Function Anxi-ety and Scotopic Function controlling for visual field area (III4e and IV4e), and scores of MRDQ/MVAQ, NEI VFQ-25, and IVI. center dot RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 146 pa-tients evenly divided between males and females, and mean age was 50 years. The 1-way ANOVA test was significant for distinguishing IRD phenotypes in 6 do-mains of MRDQ/MVAQ. Cone-Function Anxiety corre-lated with Central Vision controlling for visual acuity, Rod-Function Anxiety correlated with Scotopic Func-tion controlling for visual field area, and all domains in MRDQ/MVAQ had significant correlations with NEI VFQ-25 and IVI composite scores. center dot CONCLUSION: MRDQ and MVAQ domenstrate aspects of construct-validity set forth by the US Food and Drug Administration. The study futher supports the use of both patient-reported outcome measures in IRD clinical trials and natural history studies. (Am J Ophthalmol 2023;248: 116-126. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights re-served.)
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/59208
Referências
  1. Ahn DH, 2015, ANN REHABIL MED-ARM, V39, P74, DOI 10.5535/arm.2015.39.1.74
  2. BLATT SJ, 1995, AM PSYCHOL, V50, P1003, DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.50.12.1003
  3. Brosschot JF, 2018, INT J ENV RES PUB HE, V15, DOI 10.3390/ijerph15030464
  4. Cacioppo JT, 2015, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V66, P733, DOI 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015240
  5. Cacioppo S, 2015, PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI, V10, P238, DOI 10.1177/1745691615570616
  6. Clancy F, 2016, FRONT HUM NEUROSCI, V10, DOI 10.3389/fnhurn.2016.00534
  7. Dickman SL, 2017, LANCET, V389, P1431, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30398-7
  8. Eisenberger NI, 2012, NAT NEUROSCI, V15, P669, DOI 10.1038/nn.3086
  9. FDA Ctr Drug Evaluation Res, 2006, HEALTH QUAL LIFE OUT, V4, DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79
  10. Fresco DM, 2019, CURR OPIN PSYCHOL, V28, P65, DOI 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.10.014
  11. Garip G, 2019, BMC OPHTHALMOL, V19, DOI 10.1186/s12886-019-1169-z
  12. Henderson N, 2000, LANCET, V356, pS18, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92004-X
  13. Jackson JS, 2010, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V100, P933, DOI 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143446
  14. Kertz SJ, 2014, PSYCHOL ASSESSMENT, V26, P1146, DOI 10.1037/a0037251
  15. King AP, 2019, CURR OPIN PSYCHOL, V28, P285, DOI 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.02.009
  16. Lacy GD, 2021, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V225, P137, DOI 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.12.001
  17. Lacy GD, 2021, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V222, P60, DOI 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.08.032
  18. Lacy GD, 2020, OPHTHALMIC GENET, V41, P1, DOI 10.1080/13816810.2020.1731836
  19. Lamoureux EL, 2006, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V47, P4732, DOI 10.1167/iovs.06-0220
  20. McCracken LM, 2014, J BEHAV MED, V37, P1215, DOI 10.1007/s10865-014-9570-9
  21. Mennin DS, 2015, PSYCHOL INQ, V26, P80, DOI 10.1080/1047840X.2015.969624
  22. Mennin DS, 2013, CLIN PSYCHOL-SCI PR, V20, P258, DOI 10.1111/cpsp.12038
  23. Olatunji BO, 2013, CLIN PSYCHOL-SCI PR, V20, P225, DOI 10.1111/cpsp.12037
  24. Olatunji BO, 2010, CLIN PSYCHOL REV, V30, P642, DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.008
  25. Ottaviani C, 2016, PSYCHOL BULL, V142, P231, DOI 10.1037/bul0000036
  26. Renna Megan E, 2020, Chronic Stress (Thousand Oaks), V4, p2470547020905787, DOI 10.1177/2470547020905787
  27. Sabel BA, 2018, EPMA J, V9, P133, DOI 10.1007/s13167-018-0136-8
  28. Sims M, 2016, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V70, P187, DOI 10.1136/jech-2015-206390
  29. Thompson DA, 2015, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V56, P918, DOI 10.1167/iovs.14-16049
  30. van der Aa HPA, 2016, OPHTHAL PHYSL OPT, V36, P584, DOI 10.1111/opo.12313
  31. Williams D R, 1997, J Health Psychol, V2, P335, DOI 10.1177/135910539700200305
  32. Wright KD, 2019, NEUROBEHAVIORAL UNDE
  33. Wu N, 2022, BMJ OPEN, V12, DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046194
  34. Yioti G, 2017, SEMIN OPHTHALMOL, V32, P428, DOI 10.3109/08820538.2015.1118136
  35. Zahid S, 2014, ADV EXP MED BIOL, V801, P131, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3209-8_17

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC