Amblyopia is a common condition, which can affect up to 5% of the general population. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment have been explored in the literature. A systematic literature search was undertaken during the period of 7–14 May 2010 to identify the HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment. A total of 35 papers were included in the literature review. The HRQoL implications of amblyopia related specifically to amblyopia treatment, rather than to the condition itself. These included impact on family life, social interactions, difficulties in undertaking daily activities, as well as feelings and behaviour. The identified studies adopted a number of methodologies. The study populations included children with the condition, parents of children with amblyopia, and adults who had undertaken amblyopia treatment as a child. Some studies developed their own measures of HRQoL, and others determined HRQoL through proxy measures. The reported findings of the HRQoL implications are of importance when considering the management of cases of amblyopia. The issues identified in the literature review are discussed with respect to how HRQoL is measured (treatment compliance vs proxy measures), and whether HRQoL is taken from a child's or a parent's perspective. Changing societal views over glasses and occlusion therapy are also discussed. Further research is required to assess the immediate and long-term effects of amblyopia and/or its treatment on HRQoL using a more standardised approach.
The impact of amblyopia on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has not been adequately explored. Amblyopia is an important condition that can affect up to 5% of the general population.1 Despite an increasing body of evidence describing the effectiveness of amblyopia treatment, little robust evidence regarding HRQoL implications of the condition and/or its treatment is emerging. Within the allocation of health-care resources, there is increasing demand for evidence regarding not only treatment effectiveness but also the implication of the condition and/or the effect its treatment has on the patient in both the immediate and the long term. The use of patient-reported outcomes, such as HRQoL questionnaires, can be useful in determining the impact a condition has on an individual.
Screening programmes currently exist within the United Kingdom to identify children who have or those who are at risk of developing amblyopia. A recent report examined the clinical importance and cost-effectiveness of pre-school vision screening for children aged up to 5 years.1 It concluded that the cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia is dependent on the long-term utility (or HRQoL) effects of unilateral vision loss. However, the authors noted that the evidence of the impact of amblyopia and/or its treatment on HRQoL was limited. The purpose of this study is to undertake a systematic literature review to examine the HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment, and to evaluate the measures identified in the reported studies.
Materials and methods
A systematic literature search was undertaken during the period of 7–14 May 2010. The electronic databases searched are detailed in Appendix 1. Specific search strategies were used for each database. Search strategies were performed to identify literature pertaining to amblyopia terms, amblyopia treatment terms, children terms, and QoL terms. No date or language restrictions were applied. Details of the literature search terms and database search strategies are shown Appendix 1.
A total of 1876 articles were identified through the database searches. An additional 10 articles were identified through a recent HTA publication1 and two systematic reviews on amblyopia screening and treatment.2, 3 These articles were not identified because the publication was in a journal that was not included in the search engines used (ie, articles were published in journals not found on Medline). After the removal of duplicates, a total of 632 articles were applicable for this review. Every article identified was checked by one reviewer (JC) and subjected to a pre-determine inclusion/exclusion criteria. Articles were rejected at title if they were not related to the subject area (n=479), and rejected at abstract if they were in a non-English publication or not pertinent to the research question (n=111). Letters, reviews, and editorials describing other studies reporting HRQoL implications of amblyopia were excluded. Where abstracts were ambiguous, the article was obtained. A further seven articles were rejected at full paper stage. These were found to be review papers, summaries of other studies, or contained no data to inform the research question.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data were extracted by one reviewer (JC). Papers were assessed and data extracted using a data extraction form (see Appendix 2). Papers were examined in terms of the instruments used in the study. Newly developed HRQoL instruments identified were assessed in terms of reliability, validity, and responsiveness (see Table 2). Studies were also examined to determine whether the study respondents were children, parents, or adults who had undergone amblyopia treatment as a child. Finally, the HRQoL implications of amblyopia were extracted.
The majority of the studies reported HRQoL from a parental perspective (n=22).4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37 Some studies reported results from adults who had amblyopia as a child (n=9).8, 9, 10, 11, 24, 26, 27, 30, 33 One study involved questioning both parents and children (n=1).25 Only three studies reported results solely from the child's perspective (n=3).12, 35, 38
Study methodology: instruments used
From the 35 papers identified, 5 used an existing measure in their study methodology to determine the impact of amblyopia on HRQoL. Three studies used the Children's Visual Function Questionnaire (CVFQ).4, 7, 23 One study used the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC),12 and one study used the Visual Function Index (VF-14).8
The CVFQ is a vision-specific instrument designed for use in children up to 7 years of age. Two versions are available for younger (<3 years of age, which contains 34 items) and older children (3–7 years, which contains 39 items). The instrument consists of four dimensions: competence, personality, family impact, and treatment difficulty, and has undergone testing of reliability and validity.41
Webber et al12 used the SPPC to explore the effect amblyopia has on a child's self-esteem. This measure has been assessed for reliability and validity42 and has been used in other ophthalmological studies to determine the impact of myopia on a child's well-being.43, 44 The measure consists of 36 items, which form 6 domains (namely scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, behavioural conduct, and global self-worth). Each domain contains six questions, which are answered on a four-part scale.
The VF-14 is a well-recognised measure of vision-related functional status that has been used in many areas of ophthalmology research, particularly cataract.45 The measure consists of 14 items relating to activities of daily living, which are answered on a 4-part scale.45
Five studies were identified that developed their own instruments, and described the psychometric properties of these measures. These include the Amblyopia Treatment Index (ATI),13 the Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ),30 the Psychological Impact Questionnaire,8 the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) Questionnaire,28 and the Patching Success Questionnaire (PSQ).16 These are summarised in Table 3.
The ATI has undergone further testing of validity.6 The literature search identified that this instrument has been used in subsequent studies to investigate the impact of amblyopia and/or its treatment.5, 21, 22 The A&SQ has undergone additional testing of validity and reliability.9, 10, 11 An English version has also been developed and tested.24
Sabri et al8 developed a Psychological Impact Questionnaire and administered this in conjunction with the VF-14 to assess the construct validity of their questionnaire. The measure was developed through a literature search, clinician input, and discussion groups with amblyopic subjects. It consists of eight questions, which are answered on a five-part Likert scale.
Searle et al28 produced a questionnaire, based on the application of PMT applied to the results of interviews of parents of amblyopic children.29 The questionnaire contains seven domains and the questions are asked using a five-point Likert-type scale, although the exact number of questions is not clear from the study methodology.
Loudon et al19 developed a PSQ, a questionnaire based on the PMT. Additional questions were included to incorporate experiences of clinicians treating patients with amblyopia. The PSQ has been used in subsequent studies to explore the impact of amblyopia and/or its treatment.16, 17, 18
Six studies used qualitative methods to report the HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment (n=6).14, 25, 29, 34, 35, 38 The majority used semi-structured interviews (n=4);14, 25, 29, 34 two studies used a structured interview approach (n=2).35, 38 Two studies used proxy methods (such as educational attainment) to report the impact of amblyopia on HRQoL (n=2).27, 33
The identified studies can be summarised both in terms of their study methodologies (ie, the respondent) and the HRQoL implications identified. The identified studies may be summarised into the following broad categories.
Questioning parents about the impact of amblyopia treatment on the child's HRQoL
A total of 22 articles explored the impact of amblyopia treatment on the child's HRQoL from the parental perspective (n=22).4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37
Some of these articles specifically examined the issue of treatment compliance. Compliance might reflect the presence of QoL implications in amblyopia treatment. However, treatment compliance may also relate to parental non-concordance. Parental choice of treatment modalities and timing of treatment can affect concordance. Parental understanding of the condition was noted to impact treatment compliance.14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 28, 29, 37
Questioning children about the impact of amblyopia treatment on their HRQoL
Four papers examined the impact of amblyopia and/or its treatment on a child's HRQoL from the child's perspective (n=4).12, 25, 35, 38 One used a combination of both parental and child reporting (n=1).25 Three studies used qualitative interviews in their methodology (n=3).25, 35, 38 It should be noted that two of the identified papers reported findings from the same cohort (part of the ALSPAC (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children)).
The impact of amblyopia treatment on adults when they undertook amblyopia treatment as a child
The impact of amblyopia in later life: the use of proxy measures
Two papers were identified, which explored the impact of amblyopia on adults using proxy measures of HRQoL (n=2).27, 33 The consequences of amblyopia on educational attainment, occupational status, risk of developing long-term vision loss, behaviour, and social functioning were examined. No association was found between amblyopia and educational achievement in one study,27 whereas the other reported a borderline significant effect of amblyopia on the completion of a university degree qualification.33 No statistically significant association between amblyopia and occupational classification was found.27, 33 The risk of developing long-term vision loss in the better-seeing eye was reported to be greater in amblyopes.33 Amblyopia was not found to be associated with significant behavioural problems or bullying.27
HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment
The HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment could be considered to fall into four broad categories: impact on family life, social interactions, undertaking daily activities, as well as feelings and behaviour. These can be examined as to whether they occur as a result of amblyopia itself and/or its treatment (see Table 5).
Impact on family life
Amblyopia treatment was reported to impact family life. This resulted in increased stress and anxiety for the parent/guardian facilitating the treatment, and negatively impacted carer–child relationships.5, 6, 13, 15, 21, 22, 31, 34 Other relationships within the family were also affected.5, 6, 13, 15, 21, 22 Siblings teased or bullied the child who undertook amblyopia treatment. The increased parental attention that treatment is associated with may also be an issue. Compliance with treatment is intrinsically linked to HRQoL. Often the negative aspects of amblyopia treatment are reported, yet treatment may not always be a negative experience. If compliance is good, praise and attention may be given to the child thereby improving the parent–child relationship.
Bullying15, 25, 26, 34, 35, 38 and interactions with peers5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 38 were reported to occur as a result of amblyopia and/or its treatment. Noticeable differences in the change in appearance (by nature of wearing glasses and/or patch) meant that treatment was obvious to others. The age at which emergence of negative opinions towards others has not been adequately explored. Feelings of isolation and noting differences between others were also documented.5, 6, 8, 13, 21, 22, 25
One of the frequently reported HRQoL implications of amblyopia was the impact the condition had on career choice and educational attainment.5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 34 This could be in the immediate (such as if the treatment was undertaken during school hours) or in the long term (the implication of amblyopia in adulthood). The impact that amblyopia and treatment had on daily living activities was well documented.5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34
Feelings and behaviour
Feelings of low self-esteem and negative self-image were reported as a result of amblyopia and/or its treatment.12, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37 Other psychosocial implications included feelings of depression, frustration, and embarrassment.8, 15, 25, 27, 28, 29, 36 Literature that explored the understanding of amblyopia and its implications was identified,8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 37 with attempts made to understand why compliance to treatment may be poor in some cases. Other studies explored feelings associated with the treatment of amblyopia, specifically the sensation of patch/drops/glasses.5, 6, 13, 21, 22
The concept of QoL can be considered in terms of four domains: symptoms of the disease and side effects of treatment, physical and functional status, emotional status, and social functioning.46 It seems that the main HRQoL implications of amblyopia appear to be related to treatment of the condition rather than to the condition itself.
The search strategy used for the literature review incorporated standard terms used in HRQoL studies. However, it is possible that by extending the search strategy to include terms specifically relating to the four domains of QoL, additional studies may have been identified. The functional ability of subjects with amblyopia is an area of increasing interest, with impaired fine motor skills and slower reading speed being reported.47, 48
Some of the identified studies included subjects who had a diagnosis of strabismus and a diagnosis of amblyopia; and some of the HRQoL instruments used included questions specifically relating to strabismus. Large-angled strabismus has been documented to negatively impact QoL.49, 50 It is possible that the studies identified in the literature review which reported lower HRQoL may actually be detecting HRQoL implications of strabismus rather than those of amblyopia. Only two of the studies identified in the literature review reported HRQoL in subjects with ‘straight-eyed’ amblyopia (anisometropic or small-angled strabismus measuring <10 prism dioptres).15, 26
The adult's vs the child's perspective
Some HRQoL instruments used in the identified studies were derived from consultations with ophthalmic professionals and/or parents of children with amblyopia. Therefore, the items included in the instrument design are deemed to be of importance from an adult's perspective. The included items may be of importance to adults, but not necessarily to the child. For example, a parent may feel that educational attainment and the ability to see well at school is of great importance; however, this view may not be shared by the child. In some of the studies identified, the reported findings are taken from a parental perspective. It is not possible to state that the impact of amblyopia treatment felt by the child is the same as that perceived by adults on how, or what the child should feel or experience. Some of the questions asked included how well the child could see while undertaking treatment. The parent/guardian cannot directly assess this; they can only make a judgement on how they perceive the child is able to see while on treatment. Their judgement could be influenced by how important they judge the activity to be (such as school work or interacting with friends).
Measuring HRQoL in a young age group is challenging; however, this has been achieved in conditions such as childhood cancers, asthma, and dermatitis.50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Some of the difficulties involved include the burden of the task (ie, how difficult it is for the child to complete the questionnaire). This corresponds to the number of items (or questions) included, the scales used to answer the questions (yes/no or Likert-type scales), and the time taken to complete the task. Development of an instrument specifically designed to assess self-reported HRQoL in subjects with amblyopia is currently being undertaken by the author.55
Some studies reported HRQoL on adults who had undertaken amblyopia treatment as a child. It is possible that the recollections of adults in terms of amblyopia impacting childhood experiences could be tainted by subsequent events in adulthood. The responses are given from an adult's perspective, despite respondents being asked to recall childhood experiences and events. Recall bias is a recognised challenge in patient-reported outcomes and HRQoL research.56
Determining QoL by treatment compliance
Treatment compliance in amblyopia therapy is influenced by both the child and the parent/guardian. Although the child may object to the wearing of glasses or a patch on a personal level, a parent's perspectives can influence the success of such treatment. This may incorporate their own experiences or impressions of patching/wearing glasses, or their understanding of the condition and the importance of treatment. Although these factors have been explored in the literature, to use compliance as a measure of HRQoL is questionable. Parental understanding of the condition and belief in the prescribed treatment are key components for good treatment compliance. However, parents can be well-informed and positive, yet compliance may still be poor. Another argument against using treatment compliance as a measure of HRQoL is that a child may consent to wearing the patch, but their daily activities and social interactions may still be affected. In this instance, using treatment compliance would not truly represent any HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment.
Use of proxy measures to determine QoL
Some of the identified studies used proxy measures to determine the impact of amblyopia and/or treatment on HRQoL. These included educational attainment, occupation, long-term vision loss, and social functioning (as measured by self-reported depression of psychological distress in adult life). Such outcomes are influenced by many factors. The presence of amblyopia cannot be solely used to either explain episodes of psychological distress in adulthood or educational attainment. These studies highlight the importance of making the distinction between HRQoL and functional status or ability. Functional status and health status use measures that determine an individual's ability to perform or carry out an activity. HRQoL incorporates both the ability and an ‘evaluation of the subjective experience of being able to complete a given activity’.57 Some of the identified studies fail to address this issue and report functional status alone.
Changing trends in glasses and patches
The manner by which people who wear glasses are perceived is changing. Glasses are becoming increasingly popular, and the social acceptance of this has much improved. With traditional ‘NHS style’ glasses being a thing of the past, it could be argued that the reported HRQoL findings from some of the earlier literature may not truly reflect on how things are in modern day practice. Similarly, the choice and style of patches have also changed, with a movement towards coloured patches, and patches that fit over glasses, to improve comfort and appearance. This has started to be explored in recent studies.23
It is clear that there are HRQoL implications associated with amblyopia; however, these are related to amblyopia treatment rather than to the condition itself. Despite differing study methodologies, four key components of HRQoL were identified: those of physical ability (undertaking daily tasks), emotional status (feelings and behaviour), social interactions, and impact on family life. Very few of the studies identified assessed HRQoL from the child's perspective. Current recommendations from the Department of Health encourage the participation of children respondents in the assessment of their own health and treatment,58 and future studies in this area need to address this issue.
The HRQoL measures used in the identified studies failed to report the psychometric properties of the measures themselves (ie, reliability and validity), with the exception of the ATI, A&SQ, and Psychological Impact Questionnaire. Although their reported findings may be of clinical importance, their use in economic evaluations and subsequent policy-making decisions are limited. Further research is required to assess the immediate and long-term utility effects of amblyopia and/or its treatment, using more robust methods of HRQoL assessment.
Carlton J, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith KJ, Marr J . The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4–5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Tech Assess 2008; 12 (25): iii.
Schmucker C, Kleijnen J, Grosselfinger R, Riemsma R, Antes G, Lange S et al. Effectiveness of early in comparison to late(r) treatment in children with amblyopia or its risk factors: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2010; 17 (1): 7–17.
Schmucker C, Grosselfinger R, Riemsma R, Antes G, Lange S, Lagreze W et al. Effectiveness of screening preschool children for amblyopia: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 2009; 9: 3.
Birch EE, Cheng CS, Felius J . Validity and reliability of the Children's Visual Function Questionnaire (CVFQ). J AAPOS 2007; 11 (5): 473–479.
Holmes JM, Beck RW, Kraker RT, Cole SR, Repka MX, Birch EE et al. Impact of patching and atropine treatment on the child and family in the amblyopia treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121 (11): 1625–1632.
Holmes JM, Strauber S, Quinn GE, Cole SR, Felius J, Kulp M . Further validation of the Amblyopia Treatment Index parental questionnaire. J AAPOS 2008; 12: 581–584.
Loudon SE, Felius J, Simonsz B, Joosse MV, Fronius M, Simonsz HJ . Quality of life of children treated with occlusion therapy for amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 3596.
Sabri K, Knapp CM, Thompson JR, Gottlob I . The VF-14 and psychological impact of amblyopia and strabismus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47 (10): 4386–4392.
van de Graaf ES, Felius J, van Kempen-du SH, Looman CW, Passchier J, Kelderman H et al. Construct validation of the Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ) by factor analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009; 247 (9): 1263–1268.
van de Graaf ES, van der Sterre GW, van Kempen-du SH, Simonsz B, Looman CW, Simonsz HJ et al. Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ): clinical validation in a historic cohort. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007; 245 (11): 1589–1595.
Vianya-Estopa M, Elliott DB, Barrett BT, Vianya-Estopa M, Elliott DB, Barrett BT . An evaluation of the Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51 (5): 2496–2503.
Webber AL, Wood JM, Gole GA, Brown B . Effect of amblyopia on self-esteem in children. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85 (11): 1074–1081.
Cole SR, Beck RW, Moke PS, Celano MP, Drews CD, Repka MX et al. The Amblyopia Treatment Index. J AAPOS 2001; 5: 250–254.
Göransson A, Dahlgren LO, Lennerstrand G . Changes in conceptions of meaning, effects and treatment of amblyopia. A phenomenographic analysis of interview data from parents of amblyopic children. Patient Educ Couns 1998; 34: 213–225.
Hrisos S, Clarke MP, Wright CM . The emotional impact of amblyopia treatment in preschool children: randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 1550–1556.
Loudon SE, Chaker L, de VS, Fronius M, Looman CWN, Simonsz B et al. Electronic Recording of Patching for Amblyopia Group (ERPAG): reasons and a remedy for non-compliance? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: E-abstract 1107.
Loudon SE, Verhoef BL, Joosse MV, Fronius M, Awan M, Newsham D et al. Electronic Recording of Patching for Amblyopia Study (ERPAS): preliminary results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: E-abstract 4246.
Loudon SE, Simonsz B, Joosse MV, Fronius M, Awan M, Newsham D et al. Electronic Recording of Patching for Amblyopia Study: predictors for non-compliance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: E-abstract 4991.
Loudon SE, Passchier J, Chaker L, de VS, Fronius M, Harrad RA et al. Psychological causes of non-compliance with electronically monitored occlusion therapy for amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 1499–1503.
Newsham D . A randomised controlled trial of written information: the effect on parental non-concordance with occlusion therapy. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 787–791.
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group Writing Committee, Rutstein RP, Quinn GE, Lazar EL, Beck RW, Bonsall DJ et al. A randomized trial comparing Bangerter filters and patching for the treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology 2010; 117 (5): 998–1004.
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120 (3): 268–278.
Roefs AM, Tjiam AM, Vukovic E, Loudon SE, Felius J, Simonsz HJ . Qol and compliance during occlusion therapy for amblyopia in a prospective, double blind study comparing four brands of occlusion patches. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: E-abstract 2583.
Felius J, Beauchamp GR, Stager Sr DR, van de Graaf ES, Simonsz HJ, Felius J et al. The Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire: English translation, validation, and subscales. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143 (2): 305–310.
Koklanis K, Abel LA, Aroni R, Koklanis K, Abel LA, Aroni R . Psychosocial impact of amblyopia and its treatment: a multidisciplinary study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006; 34 (8): 743–750.
Packwood EA, Cruz OA, Rychwalski PJ, Keech RV, Packwood EA, Cruz OA et al. The psychosocial effects of amblyopia study. J AAPOS 1999; 3 (1): 15–17.
Rahi JS, Cumberland PM, Peckham CS . Does amblyopia affect educational, health, and social outcomes? Findings from 1958 British birth cohort. BMJ 2006; 332 (7545): 820–825.
Searle A, Norman P, Harrad R, Vedhara K, Searle A, Norman P et al. Psychosocial and clinical determinants of compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopic children. Eye 2002; 16 (2): 150–155.
Searle A . Compliance with eye patching in children and its psychosocial effects: a qualitative application of protection motivation theory. Psychol Health Med 2000; 5 (1): 43–54.
van de Graaf ES, van der Sterre GW, Polling JR, van KH, Simonsz B, Simonsz HJ et al. Amblyopia & Strabismus Questionnaire: design and initial validation. Strabismus 2004; 12 (3): 181–193.
Choong YF, Lukman H, Martin S, Laws DE, Choong YF, Lukman H et al. Childhood amblyopia treatment: psychosocial implications for patients and primary carers. Eye 2004; 18 (4): 369–375.
Parkes LC . An investigation of the impact of occlusion therapy on children with amblyopia, its effect of their families, and compliance with treatment. Br Orthopt J 2001; 58: 30–37.
Chua B, Mitchell P . Consequences of amblyopia on education, occupation, and long term vision loss. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 1119–1121.
Dixon-Woods M, Awan M, Gottlob I . Why is compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia so hard? A qualitative study. Arch Dis Child 2006; 91: 491–494.
Horwood J, Waylen A, Herrick D, Williams C, Wolke D . Common visual defects and peer victimisation in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46 (4): 1177–1181.
Leach C . Compliance with occlusion therapy for strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia: a pilot study. Binocular Vis Q 1995; 10 (4): 257–266.
Newsham D . Parental non-concordance with occlusion therapy. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 957–962.
Williams C, Horwood J, Northstone K, Herrick D, Waylen A, Wolke D . The timing of patching treatment and a child's wellbeing. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90 (6): 670–671.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A . Methods for obtaining health state values: generic preference-based measures of health and the alternatives. In: Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A (eds). Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation, 1st edn. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2007, pp 175–256.
Margolis MK, Coyne K, Kennedy-Martin T, Baker T, Schein O, Revicki DA . Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (12): 791–812.
Felius J, Stager Sr DR, Berry PM, Fawcett SL, Stager Jr DR, Salomao SR et al. Development of an instrument to assess vision-related quality of life in young children. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 138 (3): 362–372.
Marsh HW, Holmes IW . Multidimensional self-concepts: construct validation of responses by children. Am Ed Res J 1990; 27: 89–117.
Dias L, Manny RE, Hyman L, Fern K . The relationship between self-esteem of myopic children and ocular and demographic characteristics. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 688–696.
Dias L, Hyman L, Manny RE, Fern K . Evaluating the self-esteem of myopic children over a three-year period: the COMET experience. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 338–347.
Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD et al. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112 (5): 630–638.
Schumacher M, Olschewski M, Schulgen G . Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10 (12): 1915–1930.
Webber AL, Wood JM, Gole GA, Brown B . The effect of amblyopia on fine motor skills in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49 (2): 594–603.
Stifter E, Burggasser G, Hirmann E, Thaler A, Radner W . Monocular and binocular reading performance in children with microstrabismic amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89 (10): 1324–1329.
Satterfield D, Keltner JL, Morrison TL . Psychosocial aspects of strabismus study. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111 (8): 1100–1105.
Jackson S, Harrad RA, Morris M, Rumsey N . The psychosocial benefits of corrective surgery for adults with strabismus. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90 (7): 883–888.
Varni JW, Katz ER, Quiggens DJL, Friedman-Bender A . The Pediatric Cancer Quality of Life Inventory-32 (PCQL-32): I. Reliability and validity. Cancer 1998; 82 (6): 1184–1196.
Varni JW, Katz ER, Seid M, Quiggens DJ, Friedman-Bender A, Castro CM . The Pediatric Cancer Quality of Life Inventory (PCQL). I. Instrument development, descriptive statistics, and cross-informant variance. J Behav Med 1998; 21 (2): 179–204.
Christie MJ, French D, Sowden A, West A . Development of child-centred disease-specific questionnaires for living with asthma. Psychosom Med 1993; 55 (6): 541–548.
Lewis-Jones MS, Finlay AY . The Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI): initial validation and practical use. Br J Dermatol 1995; 132 (6): 942–949.
Stull DE, Leidy NK, Parasuraman B, Chassany O . Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25 (4): 929–942.
Clarke SA, Eiser C . The measurement of health-related quality of life (QOL) in paediatric clinical trials: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 66.
Department of Health. National Service Framework for Children Young People and Maternity Services: Core Standards. 2007. www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_4094329.
This work is produced by Jill Carlton under the terms of Researcher Development Awards research training fellowship issued by the NIHR. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, The National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health. The author is currently undertaking a PhD to produce a paediatric disease-specific measure of HRQoL in amblyopia.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched.
A specific search strategy was used for each database
Amblyopia treatment terms
Selected quality-of-life terms
Data extraction form.
Details of publication
About this article
Cite this article
Carlton, J., Kaltenthaler, E. Amblyopia and quality of life: a systematic review. Eye 25, 403–413 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.4
This article is cited by
Quality of life during occlusion therapy for amblyopia from the perspective of the children and from that of their parents, as proxy
BMC Ophthalmology (2022)
A Social Media Listening Study to Understand the Unmet Needs and Quality of Life in Adult and Pediatric Amblyopia Patients
Ophthalmology and Therapy (2022)
Knowledge and attitudes regarding amblyopia among parents in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study
BMC Research Notes (2021)
BMC Ophthalmology (2020)