Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
A Standardized Obstacle Course for Assessment of Visual Function in Ultra Low Vision and Artificial Vision
Published on: February 11, 2014
Utility values in the visually impaired: comparing time-trade off and VisQoL
Vijaya K Gothwal1, Deepak K Bagga
1Meera and L B Deshpande Centre for Sight Enhancement, Vision Rehabilitation Centres, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. vijayagothwal@gmail.com
Purpose:
Visual impairment (VI) negatively affects quality of life (QoL). Utilities represent a way of measuring the QoL impact associated with a particular health state, like VI, and are also useful in economic evaluations of health care interventions. Utilities can be determined either directly or indirectly. Here we determine whether the Vision and Quality of Life Index, VisQoL (indirect approach), is acceptable to use in patients with VI in an urban setting in South India; whether the VisQoL utility values, derived from an Australian sample of both visually impaired and normally sighted participants, demonstrate agreement (if any) with direct utilities, determined by time trade-off (TTO), from visually impaired South Indian patients; and determine the relationship between utilities and self-reported visual disability.
Methods:
Three hundred forty-nine adults with VI were administered the two-item TTO item, six-item VisQoL, and the 16-item Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease-Visual Function Questionnaire (APEDS-VFQ) in a face-to-face interview. The VisQoL utilities were derived from the utility scoring algorithm. Rasch-scaled scores of the APEDS-VFQ were obtained using the conversion scores sheets. Agreement between TTO and utilities VisQoL was assessed using the Bland-Altman method.
Results:
All participants (response rate, 100%) completed the VisQoL as compared with 72% for the TTO. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean utilities from the two methods (0.65 ± 0.31 by TTO vs. 0.66 ± 0.27 by VisQoL, p = 0.67). However, the 95% limits of agreement on the Bland-Altman plot were wide (-0.65, 0.67), implying a lack of agreement between the methods. The VisQoL relates relatively strongly with APEDS-VFQ as compared with TTO (TTO vs. APEDS-VFQ, r = -0.23, VisQoL vs. APEDS-VFQ, r = -0.66, z = -6.70; p < 0.001 for both). Older participants, female, and those with less than 12 years of education had lower utilities.
Conclusions:
The direct (TTO) and indirect (VisQoL) methods of utility evaluation tend to disagree in our patients with VI. Given the high completion rates of the VisQoL as compared with the TTO, the VisQoL may be a suitable alternative for utility assessment in an Indian population.
