Utility weights for the vision-related Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-7D instrument.

PURPOSE: To obtain utility weights consistent with the needs of economic evaluation for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-7D, a generic instrument created to increase the sensitivity of the measurement of quality of life amongst people with impaired vision. METHODS: Two extant instruments were combined, the Vision-related Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) and the AQoL-6D. Utilities were obtained from patients with visual impairment and from the general population using time trade-off (TTO) methodology. Dimensions were combined and an econometric adjustment used to eliminate the effects of instrument redundancy. Bias was tested by comparison of holistic TTO values with utility scores predicted from the AQoL-7D scoring formula. RESULTS: The AQoL-7D instrument consists of 26 items and 7 dimensions each with good psychometric properties. Their combination into a single instrument resulted in significant redundancy which was successfully eliminated. Utility formulae for both the public and patients produced bias-free estimates of the utility of holistic health states describing visual impairment. Results imply differing valuations of health states by the public and by people with impaired vision. CONCLUSIONS: The AQoL-7D can detect changes in health states affecting people with impaired vision which are likely to be overlooked by other generic instruments due to content insensitivity. The utilities it produces are generated using a "mainstream" methodology, the TTO. Quality-adjusted life year values based on the AQoL-7D may therefore be used for economic evaluation of programs.

The relevance of personal characteristics in health care rationing: what the Australian public thinks and why.

This article examines the preferences of the general public in Australia regarding health care resource allocation. While previous studies have revealed that the public is willing to give priority to particular groups of patients based on their personal characteristics, the present article goes beyond previous efforts in attempting to explain these results. In the present study, there was strong support among respondents for giving "equal priority" to people regardless of their personal characteristics. However, respondents did reveal a preference for married patients over single, for children over adults, for carers of children and the elderly, sole breadwinners, and good community contributors. Further, they would give a lower priority to those perceived as "self-harmers"­smokers, individuals with unhealthy diets, and those who rarely exercise. Variation in the answers according to broad economic and social beliefs across seven different categories ("factors") influenced the pattern of the public's attitudes towards rationing. The Principal Components Analysis (PCA) indicated that most of the items in our survey are associated with seven factors that explain or capture much of the variation. These relate to a patient's avoidance of self-harm behaviors (Safe Living), their Life Style (diet, exercise, etc.), their contribution to the community through caring for others (Caring), their talents (Gifted), their sexual behavior (Sexuality), their age and marital status (Family), and whether they are an Australian citizen or employed (Citizen). The strength of social preferences­e.g., how strongly respondents would "discriminate" against a recreational drug user or preference a person with a healthy diet­is related to the particular class of preferences.

Eye health in rural Australia.

A review of the current literature relating to eye health in rural Australia was conducted. Few studies have been undertaken, with most information provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare databases, The National Trachoma and Eye Health Program of 1980 and the Visual Impairment Project in Victoria in the mid 1990s. Key findings were that the rural population has an increased prevalence of pterygium, cataract, ocular trauma and glaucoma, but no difference in refractive error or diabetic retinopathy (although data are limited). Rural residents are more likely to have seen an optometrist but less likely to have seen an ophthalmologist. Interventions have been undertaken in ophthalmologist training to increase the rural workforce and tele-ophthalmology to provide city-based metropolitan ophthalmological support for rural practitioners. Further epidemiological data and evaluated interventions are urgently required to help identify and address the needs of rural Australian communities.