Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments

PURPOSE: To identify vision Patient-Reported Outcomes instruments relevant to glaucoma and assess their content validity.

METHODS: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE and SCOPUS (to January 2009) were systematically searched. Observational studies or randomised controlled trials, published in English, reporting use of vision instruments in glaucoma studies involving adults were included. In addition, reference lists were scanned to identify additional studies describing development and/or validation to ascertain the final version of the instruments. Instruments' content was then mapped onto a theoretical framework, the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and quality assessed instrument content.

RESULTS: Thirty-three instruments were identified. Instruments were categorised into thirteen vision status, two vision disability, one vision satisfaction, five glaucoma status, one glaucoma medication related to health status, five glaucoma medication side effects and six glaucoma medication satisfaction measures according to each instruments' content. The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25, Impact of Vision Impairment and Treatment Satisfaction Survey-Intraocular Pressure had the highest number of positive ratings in the content validity assessment.

CONCLUSION: This study provides a descriptive catalogue of vision-specific PRO instruments, to inform the choice of an appropriate measure of patient-reported outcomes in a glaucoma context.

Climate Change, national politics and grassroots action: an introduction

Climate change continues to dominate academic work within green/environmental politics. Indeed, there appears to be almost an inverse relationship between the lack of political leadership on tackling climate change and the growth in ever more sophisticated academic analyses of this complex and multifaceted problem. There is an increasing disjunction between the growth in our knowledge and understanding of the ethical, political, economic, sociological, cultural, and psychological aspects of climate change and the lack of political achievement in putting in place clear and binding targets, an agreed decarbonisation roadmap, and associated regulatory and policy instruments with enforcement. This gap might be taken as evidence that we do not need more reports on climate change. To quote that most unlikely of green politicians, Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor of California: ‘The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know that the time for action is now’ (California Energy Commission 2007, p. 1). This special issue focuses on a variety of ways in which climate change is conceptualised in normative political and ethical theory, and addressed in policy and regulations.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.