Evaluation of the test-retest and inter-mode comparability of the Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire in people with chronic eye diseases.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study is to assess the test-retest and inter-administration mode reliability of the Impact of Vision Impairment profile (IVI), a common patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for people with chronic eye diseases. METHODS: The IVI was administered to adult patients with stable, chronic eye diseases two to four times per participant (average intervals between administrations 12 to 20 days; maximum two phone interviews, paper administration, electronic administration) by two trained interviewers. Rasch models were fit to the data. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean differences and Cronbach's alpha between test-retest administrations (two phone interviews) and inter-mode comparisons were calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred-sixteen patients (mean age 67 ± 12 years, 40% male) were included in the study. The IVI met all psychometric requirements of the Rasch model, and the division into the domains of functional items (IVI_F) and emotional items (IVI_E) corresponded to the German validation study. ICCs (all for IVI_F and IVI_E, respectively) for the retest administrations were 0.938 and 0.912, and 0.853 and 0.893 for inter-mode comparisons phone/paper, 0.939 and 0.930 for phone/electronic, and 0.937 and 0.920 for paper/electronic (all p < 0.01). Mean differences (all for IVI_F and IVI_E, respectively) for the retest administrations were 2.8% and 0.7% and ranged from 2.0% to 6.2% and from 0.4 % to 4.9% between administration modes. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.886 to 0.944 for retest and inter-mode comparisons. CONCLUSION: Due to the high test-retest reliability and the almost equally high comparability of different modes of administration of the IVI, the study endorses its use as a robust PROM to capture vision-related quality of life. Our results further support the use of the IVI as an endpoint in clinical trials and may simplify implementing it in both clinical trials or real-world evidence generation by offering multiple administration modes with high reliability.

Effects of Post-awakening Light Exposure on Heart Rate Variability in Healthy Male Individuals.

Light-induced effects on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are assumed to be mediated by retinal projections to the hypothalamic suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) via different routes. Light information for the circadian system is detected by a subset of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), however, inconsistency exists in research concerning the effects of light exposure on heart rate variability (HRV). Two within-subject experiments were conducted in a standardized sleep laboratory to investigate effects of light intensity (study I, n = 29: 2 days dim vs. bright light) and spectral composition (study II, n = 24: 3 days using red vs. blue vs. green light) on HRV parameters (RMSSD, LF, HF-HRV, LF/HF ratio). Light exposure was conducted for one-hour in the post-awakening phase at 5:00 AM. Results revealed no significant light intensity effect comparing dim light versus bright white light on HRV parameters. Light color of different wavelengths significantly influenced all HRV parameters except the low frequency, with moderate to large effect sizes. RMSSD values were elevated for all three colors compared to norm values, indicating stronger parasympathetic activation. LED light of different spectral compositions demonstrated bidirectional effects on spectral components of the HRV. Red light decreased the LF/HF ratio within 30 min, whereas with blue light, LF/HF ratio consistently increased across 40 min of light exposure.

The inflammatory immune system after wake up in healthy male individuals: A highly standardized and controlled study.

This study investigates the effects of two light conditions on innate proinflammatory IL-6 cytokines and the cortisol awakening response. The between-subject experiment was conducted with 55 healthy adult-males (aged M bright = 24.40, SD = 4.58; M dim = 25.47, SD = 4.96) in a standardized sleep laboratory setting with 60-min light exposure post-awakening. Cortisol significantly increased with bright light exposure as compared to dim light (significant interaction effect). As for IL-6, the main effects of time and light condition were significant, however, the interaction effect between light and time was insignificant. Results replicate stimulatory effects of bright light on cortisol. In general, IL-6 concentrations decreased in both light conditions; however, bright light graphically showed higher concentrations 45-90 min after exposure in comparison to dim light, thus bright light has a potential stimulatory effect on IL-6 production.

Interviewer Administration Corresponds to Self-Administration of the Vision Impairment in Low Luminance (VILL) Questionnaire.

Purpose: To quantify the impact of the mode of administration (MOA) on scores of the Vision Impairment in Low Luminance (VILL) questionnaire. Methods: The VILL questionnaire was implemented using different MOAs (paper, interview, electronic), in addition to a demographical survey of adult participants recruited at an outpatient eye clinic, with the initial MOA being either paper or interview. Polytomous Rasch models were used to generate person measure scores for the three subscales of the VILL questionnaire (reading, VILL_R; mobility, VILL_M; and emotional, VILL_E). Measures of agreement among the different MOAs were calculated (self-administered paper/interview, self-administered paper/self-administered electronic, and interview/self-administered electronic). An age-matched analysis was performed to control for the impact of the initial MOA, administration interval, visual acuity, and self-reported hearing difficulties. Results: We included 309 participants (mean age, 63 ± 14 years; 61% female). Intra-class correlation coefficients were 0.930, 0.919, and 0.799 for paper versus interview assessment; 0.951, 0.959, and 0.916 for paper versus electronic; and 0.967, 0.955, and 0.907 for interview versus electronic assessment (VILL_R, VILL_M, and VILL_E, respectively). Mean differences were 0.35, 0.41, and 1.74 logits; 0.32, 0.18, and 0.68 logits; and 0.08, 0.22, and 0.63 logits, respectively. None of the mentioned factors significantly affected the results (corrected P ≥ 0.11). Conclusions: Paper, interview, and electronic MOAs of the VILL can be considered equivalent. Reporting across the main MOAs of self-administration (paper) and interviewer-administration was unaffected by better eye visual acuity and self-reported hearing difficulties. Translational Relevance: The results support use of the VILL questionnaire with flexible modes of administration.