Objective: To develop a Chinese version of the Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life questionnaire (CLIQ), assess its reliability and validity, and analyze the factors that influence the score. Methods: A Chinese version of CLIQ was developed, including forward and backward translation and a cultural adaptation of the original English CLIQ. Then a cross-sectional investigation was carried out. Two hundred and five patients were selected from the Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical Universtity and than evaluated using the Chinese version of CLIQ, 20 of them were randomly selected and evaluated by two investigators separately. Questionnaire data were statistically analyzed. Results: A total 201 questionnaires were analyzed. The visual function domain was discarded because of the low response rate (less than 50%). Cronbach's α coefficient scale was 0.77, the ocular symptoms domain was 0.68, and the convenience, economy and well-being domains were more than 0.7. The Guttmann Split-half reliability scale was 0.89, and 0.75, 0.78, 0.65 and 0.93 for the convenience, economy and well-being domains, respectively. Cronbach's α coefficient and Guttmann Split-half coefficient were both 0.49 for the cognitive domain. Cronbach's α coefficient and Guttmann Split-half coefficient increased to 0.68 and 0.73, respectively, after deleting item 20 in the well-being domain, so items 15, 16 and 20 were deleted. Scores between the two investigators had a high positive correlation (r=0.87-0.99, P<0.001). The item level content validity index of each item was 0.83-1.00; the average level of the content validity index of the scale was 0.95. Five extracted factors corresponded to each domainby exploratory factor analysis and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 60.43%. The ocular symptoms domain had as light negative correlation with age (r=- 0.153, P=0.03) and the number of years the lenses were worn (r=-0.167, P=0.018); the well-being domain was slightly correlated with the number of years the lenses were worn (r=0.209, P=0.003). The total score of the scale was significantly different between the number of years the lenses were worn (3.60±0.34 vs. 3.71±0.32, P=0.026), the days the lenses were wornper month (3.60±0.33 vs. 3.70±0.33, P=0.041) and those with/without ocular symptoms (3.71±0.32 vs. 3.60±0.34, P=0.021). The score of economic domain of soft contact lens wearers were higher than that of RGP wearers (t=2.588, P=0.017). Conclusions: After removing the visual function domain, cognitive domain and item 20, the CLIQ's reliability and validity are good. Those who wore the lenses for more years, more days per month and without ocular symptoms score higher. Rigid gas permeable contact lens (RGP) wearers are more worried about cost.
李天坤1,2 黄锦海1,2 许琛琛1,2 陈海丝1,2 李坤珂1 王勤美1,2 高蓉蓉1,2. 国人版角膜接触镜配戴者生活质量量表的研制与评估[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2020, 22(2): 111-118.
Tiankun Li1, 2, Jinhai Huang1, 2, Chenchen Xu1, 2, Haisi Chen1, 2, Kunke Li1,Qinmei Wang1, 2, Rongrong Gao1, 2. Development and Evaluation of Contact Lens Impact on the Chinese Version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2020, 22(2): 111-118. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2020.02.006
Zhang X, Wang Y, Huang D, et al. Prevalence of reduced visual acuity among preschool children in eastern China and comparison at a 5-year interval. Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2018,
46
(9): 994-1001. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.13330.
[2]
Plowright AJ, Maldonado-Codina C, Howarth GF, et al. Daily disposable contact lenses versus spectacles in teenagers. Optom Vis Sci, 2015, 92(1): 44-52. DOI: 10.1097/OPX. 0000000000000454.
[3]
Kanonidou E, Chatziralli IP, Konidaris V, et al. A comparative study of visual function of young myopic adults wearing contact lenses vs. spectacles. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2012, 35(5): 196-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2012.07.001.
[4]
Haq Z, Farooq AV, Huang AJ. Infections after refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2016, 27(4): 367-372. DOI: 10.1097/icu.0000000000000275.
Kushner BJ, Kowal L. Diplopia after refractive surgery: occurrence and prevention. Arch Ophthalmol, 2003, 121(3): 315-321. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.121.3.315.
[7]
Leidy NK, Vernon M. Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 2008, 26(5): 363-370. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826050-00002.
[8]
Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) Questionnaire: Development and validation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2006, 47(7): 2789-2796. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0933.
[9]
Kandel H, Khadka J, Goggin M, et al. Patient-reported Outcomes for Assessment of Quality of Life in Refractive Error: A Systematic Review. Optom Vis Sci, 2017, 94(12): 1102-1119. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001143.
[10]
Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol, 1995, 24(2): 61-63. DOI: 10.3109/03009749509099285.
[11]
Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, et al. Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health, 2003, 6(5): 522-531. DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x.
[12]
U.S. Department of Health Human Services, F.D.A. Center for Drug Evaluation Research, U.S. Department of Health Human Services, et al. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2006, 4: 79. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79.
[13]
Walline JJ, Bailey MD, Zadnik K. Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction. Optom Vis Sci, 2000, 77(12): 648-652. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-200012000-00011.
[14]
Lipson MJ, Sugar A, Musch DC. Overnight corneal reshaping versus soft disposable contact lenses: vision-related qualityof-life differences from a randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci, 2005, 82(10): 886-891. DOI: 10.1097/01.opx.0000180818. 40127.dc.
[15]
Lipson MJ, Musch DC. Synergeyes versus soft toric lenses: vision-related quality of life. Optom Vis Sci, 2007, 84(7): 593-597. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31811ece4a.
[16]
Ritchey ER, Barr JT, Mitchell GL. The comparison of overnight lens modalities (COLM) study. Eye Contact Lens, 2005, 31(2): 70-75. DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02181.x.
[17]
Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. Ophthalmology, 2001, 108(6): 1160-1166. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00559-0.
Yildiz EH, Erdurmus M, Elibol ES, et al. Contact lens impact on quality of life in keratoconus patients: rigid gas permeable versus soft silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015, 8(5): 1074-1077. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015. 05.38.
[21]
Erdurmus M, Yildiz EH, Abdalla YF, et al. Contact lens related quality of life in patients with keratoconus. Eye Contact Lens, 2009, 35(3): 123-127. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31819d1dd0.
[22]
Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Elliott DB. Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2005, 31(8): 1537-1543. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.12.059.