Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the EQ‑5D‑3L adequately captures the psychological impact of sight loss and to assess its sensitivity compared to vision‑specific instruments
METHODS: Evidence was synthesised from peer‑reviewed studies examining EQ‑5D‑3L performance in visually impaired populations, including analyses of its psychometric behaviour, limitations, and comparisons with vision‑specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Key sources included large cross‑sectional datasets, systematic reviews, and instrument‑level evaluations.
RESULTS: Studies consistently show that EQ‑5D‑3L underestimates the burden of sight loss. In a major cross‑sectional study of visually impaired adults (n=492), EQ‑5D‑3L showed poor sensitivity to vision impairment and failed to capture the functional and psychosocial effects of sight loss, despite anxiety/depression being the most frequently affected dimension. Generic HRQoL reviews indicate that while EQ‑5D captures some mental health deterioration associated with reduced visual acuity, it misses broader psychosocial impacts including loss of confidence, social withdrawal, emotional adjustment, and identity disruption. Vision‑specific tools such as NEI‑VFQ‑25, IVI, and LVQOL consistently demonstrate stronger correlation with both functional vision metrics and emotional consequences of sight loss, highlighting their greater suitability for assessing psychological burden.
CONCLUSIONS: EQ‑5D‑3L does not capture the full psychological impact of sight loss. While its anxiety/depression dimension assesses some aspects of mental health, the instrument lacks sensitivity to the multi‑dimensional psychological consequences of vision impairment. Vision‑specific PROMs provide more accurate assessments and should complement or replace EQ‑5D‑3L in evaluations where psychological burden is a key outcome.