Search

Introduction: To compare the insights obtained about the experience of individuals with presbyopia (age-related impaired near vision) across three different sources of qualitative data: a structured targeted literature review, a social media listening (SML) review, and qualitative concept elicitation (CE) interviews with individuals with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The number of concepts identified, depth of data, cost and time implications, and value of the patient insights generated were explored and compared for each method. Methods: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases and review of abstracts identified 120 relevant publications; in-depth targeted literature review of the qualitative studies identified key symptoms/functioning concepts. SML was conducted using publicly accessible social media sources with focus on ophthalmologic diseases using a pre-defined search string. Relevant posts from individuals with presbyopia (n = 270) were analysed and key concepts identified. Semi-structured CE interviews were conducted with individuals with presbyopia (US n = 30, Germany n = 10, France n = 10), and HCPs (US = 3, France n = 2, Germany n = 1, Japan n = 1) who were experienced in treating presbyopia. Verbatim transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. A conceptual model summarised concepts identified across sources Results: Out of the total of 158 concepts identified across the three sources, qualitative CE interviews yielded the highest number of concepts (n = 151/158, 96%), with SML yielding a third of the concepts (n = 51/158, 32%) and the literature review yielding the fewest concepts (n = 33/158, 21%). Qualitative CE interviews provided greater depth of data than SML and literature reviews. SML and literature reviews were less costly and quicker to run than qualitative CE interviews and also were less burdensome for participants. Conclusion: Qualitative CE interviews are considered the gold standard in providing greater depth of understanding of the patient experience, and more robust data. However, research requirements, budget, and available time should be considered when choosing the most appropriate research method. More time and cost-effective SML and literature review methods can be used to supplement qualitative CE interview data and provide early identification of measurement concepts. More research and regulatory guidance into less traditional qualitative methods, however, are needed to increase the value of SML and literature review data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Presbyopia is the age-related deterioration in the ability to focus on close objects. In order to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to assess near vision functioning, the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) was adapted to incorporate modern technology (e.g. smartphones) and to be appropriate for use in phakic presbyopia, leading to the development of the NAVQ-Presbyopia (NAVQ-P). Additional single-item instruments of near vision correction independence (NVCI), correction preference (NVCP), and vision satisfaction (NVS) were also developed. The study aimed to evaluate the content validity of the NAVQ-P and additional instruments in individuals with phakic presbyopia. Methods: Participants in the US (n = 15), Germany (n = 10) and France (n = 10) took part in face-to-face, qualitative, cognitive debriefing interviews. Seven healthcare professionals (HCPs) were also interviewed to assess the clinical relevance of the PRO instruments. Interviews started with open-ended qualitative concept elicitation questioning; participants then completed the PRO instruments on an electronic tablet using a "think-aloud" process and were asked about their understanding and relevance of each item, instruction, response scale and recall period. Interviews were conducted in two rounds allowing for modifications between rounds. Results: The participants interpreted the majority of the PRO instruments and recall period correctly and consistently. They were able to select an appropriate response option without difficulty. Minor modifications were made to the PRO instruments based on interview findings. Instruction/item wording was modified to include reference to use of a magnifying glass, in addition to glasses and contact lenses. Two items were added to assess difficulty with precision tasks (e.g. sewing) and taking longer to adjust from distance to near vision. HCPs confirmed the relevance of the concepts being measured for presbyopia and recommended the addition of an item assessing contrast sensitivity. Conclusions: Developed in accordance with the FDA PRO Guidance, the findings support content validity of the NAVQ-P as a suitable, well-understood instrument of relevant near vision functioning concepts in individuals with phakic presbyopia. The NVCI and additional PRO instruments are appropriate to assess near vision correction independence, correction preference, and vision satisfaction. Future work will assess the psychometric properties of the NAVQ-P and additional PRO instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]