ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Health utility values associated with vision impairment among the elderly in Hong Kong: a community-based study using EQ-5D-5 L and time trade-off.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo estimate health utility decrements associated with correctable and uncorrectable vision impairment (VI) in community-dwelling older adults in Hong Kong using the EQ-5D-5 L and time trade-off (TTO), and to compare the sensitivity of these utility instruments in detecting VI's quality-of-life impacts.
methodsA random sample of 999 older adults, previously screened in a community-based eye care programme between 2015 and 2017 and not referred for eye specialist care, completed follow-up eye examinations and questionnaire surveys between 2022 and 2024. Distance VI was defined as presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 in the better-seeing eye, and categorized as correctable (due to uncorrected refractive error, URE) or uncorrectable (due to pathology), based on best-corrected visual acuity. Health utility was measured using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire and the TTO method. Associations between VI type and utility scores were analyzed using multivariable linear regression.
resultsThe prevalence of VI was 19.1%, with 15.4% correctable and 3.7% uncorrectable. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility scores were 0.91 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.15) for those without VI, 0.90 (SD = 0.12) for correctable VI, and 0.85 (SD = 0.22) for uncorrectable VI (p < 0.05). Mean TTO scores followed a similar pattern: 0.95 (SD = 0.14), 0.94 (SD = 0.15), and 0.89 (SD = 0.22), respectively. In adjusted models, uncorrectable VI was significantly associated with a 0.052 decrease in TTO utility (95% confidence interval: -0.103 to -0.002; p < 0.05), while correctable VI showed no significant utility loss in either measure.
conclusionsThere were generally lower utility values for community dwelling elders with VI compared to no VI, with significant reductions of uncorrectable VI due to eye diseases in health utility among older adults living in the community. In contrast, correctable VI due to URE did not significantly affect utility values, suggesting that generic instruments like EQ-5D-5 L and TTO may lack sensitivity to detect the burden of milder, reversible vision loss. These findings provide essential data for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of community eye care programs and highlight the need for more targeted quality-of-life measures in vision research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.