Protocol for scoping review: Instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment.

Tshubelela Sello Simon Magakwe; Rekha Hansraj; Sphamandla Josias Nkambule; Zamadonda Nokuthula Queen Xulu-Kasaba

doi:10.12688/f1000research.151839.1

Home Browse Protocol for scoping review: Instruments for assessing vision-specific...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Protocol for scoping review: Instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment.

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Tshubelela Sello Simon Magakwe ¹, Rekha Hansraj¹, Sphamandla Josias Nkambule², Zamadonda Nokuthula Queen Xulu-Kasaba¹

PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Optometry, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, 4000, South Africa
² Public Health Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, 4000, South Africa

Tshubelela Sello Simon Magakwe
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rekha Hansraj
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sphamandla Josias Nkambule
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Zamadonda Nokuthula Queen Xulu-Kasaba
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Childhood visual impairment (VI) is less common than in adults, but research has demonstrated that it can have significant long-term negative impacts on the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of children and adolescents. Unfortunately, there is currently a lack of vision-specific instruments available for accurately assessing HR-QoL in children and adolescents with VI, particularly in resource-limited settings.

The objective of this scoping review is to methodically evaluate the evidence pertaining to (1) the accessibility and usage of instruments specifically designed to assess HR-QoL in children and adolescents who have VI, (2) summarise studies on HR-QoL in children and adolescent with VI, and (3) describe the psychometric properties of vision-specific instruments used for assessing HR-QoL in children and adolescents with VI.

The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guideline (2020) for scoping reviews, utilizing frameworks by Arksey and O’Malley, and methodological enhancements suggested by Levac (2010). A systematic search will be performed through various databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost, to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English from inception until 31 December 2023. The EBSCOhost platform will include several databases, such as Academic Search Complete, APA PsycINFO, Health Source-Consumer Edition, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and Open Dissertations. The extracted data will be analysed narratively using QualCoder 1.9 version, and the study’s findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

The researchers anticipate that the literature will assist in exploring and relating various types of HR-QoL tools used globally.

This review’s conclusion will help researchers ascertain research gaps in vision-related QoL instruments based on different economies, countries, and environments. This will further aid researchers in planning and developing tools suitable for African contexts and languages.

Keywords

Visual impairment, vision-related quality of life instruments, health-related quality of life, children's eye health, adolescents

Corresponding author: Tshubelela Sello Simon Magakwe

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Magakwe TSS et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Magakwe TSS, Hansraj R, Nkambule SJ and Xulu-Kasaba ZNQ. Protocol for scoping review: Instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:740 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151839.1) First published: 04 Jul 2024, 13:740 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151839.1) Latest published: 04 Jul 2024, 13:740 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151839.1)

1. Introduction

The Classification of Diseases, injuries, and Causes of Death, of the World Health Organization (WHO) defines visual impairment (VI) as having a best-corrected visual acuity (VA) that is less than 0.30 LogMAR but better than 1.00 LogMAR.¹ It is recommended to include low vision, which is defined as VA worse than 0.50 LogMAR but better than or equal to 1.30 LogMAR, or corresponding visual field loss of 10 degrees in the better eye, with the best correction, as well as blindness, which is defined as the VA of worse than 1.30 LogMAR and/or visual field restrictions where the widest diameter is 20 degrees or less in the better-seeing eye with the best correction, in the definition of VI.² Moreover, VI can be further categorized as mild, moderate, or severe.³ Visual impairment can significantly impact a child’s performance in school, as 85% of learning depends on vision.⁴ Children with VI also face limitations in participating in sporting activities that require good vision.⁵ The negative effects of VI extend beyond academic and athletic performance to the socio-economic security of affected individuals.²^,⁴ Thus, not suprisingly, VI has been shown to impact children’s quality of life (QoL).⁴

Globally, there are approximately 19 million children with visual impairments,² 12.8 million of whom suffer from uncorrected refractive error (URE),⁶ with eight million children classified as blind due to URE.⁷ It is noteworthy that 90% of these children reside in low to middle-income countries.⁸^,⁹ The impact of VI is significantly greater when it occurs before or during school-going age, as these children are likely to carry these conditions for a greater number of years.¹⁰ It has been reported that visual impairment affects the quality of life (QoL) of the affected individuals.²^,⁴ According to the WHO, QoL can be defined as the state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease.¹¹ The WHO group that focuses on the QoL of individuals elaborates further by indicating that QoL is also concerned with the personal perception of an individual’s position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live, and concerning personal goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.¹²^,¹³ Therefore, the vision-related QoL can be defined in the context of uncorrected refractive error and visual impairment.¹⁴

The assessment of HR-QoL is currently an important expansion that is used to evaluate the impact of any disease or health condition on an individual’s QoL and the effectiveness of treatment on those individuals, moreover, it can also be used to determine the effectiveness of treatment on the affected individuals.¹⁵^,¹⁶ These self-reporting instruments have been accepted as important tools in ophthalmic research too,¹⁷ and are considered better than the traditional way of relying on the signs, symptoms, morbidity, and mortality.¹⁸ Moreover, studies have shown that children can answer any HR-QoL questionnaire reliably if their reading skills, cognitive capacity, and emotional development were considered during the development of those questionnaires.¹⁹^,²⁰ Many vision-specific instruments for assessing HR-QoL in adults have been reviewed,²¹ yet despite the high prevalence of VI due to URE among children in recent years, very few similar instruments for children and adolescents have undergone review.

Furthermore, there is a notable absence of clear understanding regarding the accessibility and implementation of specialized tools designed to evaluate the HR-QoL in visually impaired children and adolescents. These instruments are currently developed using English and utilised by individuals whose first language is not English, and these instruments have been developed amongst individuals primarily in developed countries with varying social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, this review will aim to map the availability of the vision-specific HR-QoL instruments that measure the QoL of children and adolescents with visual impairment (VI) taking the aforementioned gaps into account.

We conducted the preliminary search on three different platforms, namely the Open Science Framework, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis. No systematic or scoping reviews related to the topic were found at present.

1.1 Objectives

This scoping review aims to accomplish three main objectives. Firstly, it will involve a systematic mapping of available evidence on the use and accessibility of vision-specific instruments that assess the Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL) in children and adolescents with VI. Secondly, it will synthesize the findings of studies that focus on HR-QoL in children and adolescents with VI. Lastly, it aims to provide a description of the psychometric properties of the currently available vision-specific instruments that evaluate HR-QoL in children and adolescents with VI.

2. Methods

A scoping review study uses systematic methods to examine literature and evidence related to a specific research subject, with the ultimate goal of informing practice in a given field. This particular review is part of a larger study that aims to create a context-specific HR-QoL instrument for children in an African setting, utilizing existing data. Using the scoping review framework guidelines established by Arksey and O’Malley (2005),²² and recommended methodological enhancements by Levac et al. (2010),²³ this scoping review will consist of five steps. According to Arksey and O’Malley (2005), conducting a scoping review involves five distinct stages as follows: (1) defining the review question and establishing criteria for selecting studies, (2) searching for studies that address a particular review question, (3) selecting studies that meet specific inclusion criteria for the review, (4) charting data from included studies, and ultimately (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting all findings. Thereafter, review results will be aligned with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation²⁴ in the final report. This review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework, reference (9hw8c-v1) and access link https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-9hw8c-v1 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9HW8C). This protocol adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist.³⁵

2.1 Review question

What is the evidence regarding the availability and usage of vision-specific instruments to assess health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment?

Sub-questions:

1. What are the findings of studies examining HR-QoL in children and adolescents with visual impairments?
2. What are the psychometric properties of current vision-specific instruments for assessing HR-QoL in children and adolescents with visual impairments?

The main research question was determined using the PCC nomenclature framework, recommended by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: 2020 Edition as outlined in Table 1.²⁵

Table 1. PCC framework for determining the eligibility of the research questions.

Criteria	Determinant
Population	The study population will be children and adolescents aged 5-18 years of age as classified by L. Berk (2013) living with any form of visual impairment.²⁶
Concept	Visual function quality of life OR Vision-related quality of life OR Functional vision quality of life
Context	Globally

2.2 Search strategy

To ensure a thorough and replicable search for relevant studies, a systematic search will be conducted in reputable bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. The EBSCOhost platforms will encompass various databases, such as Academic Search Complete, APA PsycInfo, Health Source-Consumer Edition, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and Open Dissertations. These databases and platforms will be explored to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English from the date of inception up to 31 December 2023, as well as other supplementary information sources like Google Scholar. The primary and supplementary systematic searches will be performed by TSS, the principal investigator, according to a pre-defined search strategy developed in collaboration with two subject librarians from the University of KwaZulu Natal and the University of Free State.

The comprehensive search strategy was co-developed by the first author and the two subject specialists. The draft was reviewed by all authors to ensure the appropriate use of indexing terminology and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptors before it was tested on a subset of records from the PubMed database. The search strategy descriptors and truncation details are presented in appendix I and II, and are deposited on Zenodo,³⁶ while Table 2 shows the number of records returned from the consulted PubMed database.

Table 2. Search strategy pilot search result from PubMed database.

Date of Search	The search engine used (Database)	Keyword search used	No. of articles retrieved
08/06/2023	PubMed	(((((vision-related) OR (visual function)) OR (functional vision)) AND ((quality of life) OR (QOL))) AND ((child) OR (adolescent))) AND ((((visual impairment) OR (refractive error)) OR (low vision)) OR (blindness))	679

2.3 Eligibility criteria

This scoping review will include all studies conducted worldwide that report on the development of vision-related quality-of-life assessment tools for children and adolescents between 5 and 18 years of age as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. Eligibility criteria according to the PCCd-T nomenclature criteria.

Criteria	Inclusions	Exclusions
Population	Any study involving children or adolescents, regardless of location or setting, will be included. Reported participants of any gender, ethnicity, culture, race, or comorbidity will also be included.	Research studies involving non-children as participants
Concept	Studies reporting the development of visual function quality of life instruments, vision function quality of life questionnaires, vision-related quality of life instruments, or functional vision quality of life questionnaires.	Research studies that report on any other instruments in health or other field.
Context	Globally	None
Study Design	Original, qualitative study designs published in English, peer-reviewed, regardless of publication year, will be considered.	In this review, systematic reviews and other reviews are excluded (although reference lists of relevant reviews will be examined for primary studies). Furthermore, quantitative studies, case reports, anecdotal reports, modelling studies, and conference abstracts are excluded.
Time	While there are no restrictions, the initial review period will consider articles published until 31 December 2023

Types of sources

The scope of this review encompasses a range of study designs, both experimental and epidemiological. This includes randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, and analytical cross-sectional studies. To avoid any duplication of data, we will exclude HR-QoL instruments/questionnaires utilized in reviews and conference abstracts. Similarly, we will not be including gray literature in this review, as it is outside the scope of our focus, which is on quantitative questionnaires and instruments that have been psychometrically tested and validated for use on children and adolescents living with VI.

Study/source of evidence selection

After conducting the search, all citations that are identified will be compiled and uploaded into Mendeley version 2.76.0/2023, and any duplicates will be removed. The titles and abstracts of these citations will be independently screened by TSS and HC to determine their relevance to the review’s inclusion criteria. Any sources deemed potentially relevant will be retrieved in full, and their citation details will be imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI) (JBI, Adelaide, Australia).²⁷ The full text of the selected citations will be thoroughly assessed against the inclusion criteria by two or more independent reviewers. Any sources not meeting the inclusion criteria will be excluded, with reasons for their exclusion, and will be recorded in this scoping review. In the event of any disagreements between the reviewers during any stage of the selection process, they will be resolved through discussion or with the help of an additional reviewer/s.

2.4 Data extraction

Two independent reviewers will utilize a data extraction tool, which was created via google form, and includes authors and year of study, title, country, ages of the participants, ethnicity, sample sizes, concept measured, domains, rating scales, list of items, outcome measurers, conclusion, and recommendations. This tool has been developed by the PI and pretested for compatibility to extract data from the papers included in the scoping review. A draft extraction form is provided represented in Appendix III, which can be found in Zenodo.³⁶ Zenodo The data extraction tool will be modified as needed for each source. Any changes or alterations made during the scoping review process will be clearly outlined. Any discrepancies or conflicts that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through open discussion and, if needed, with the assistance of an additional reviewer. If any information is missing or incomplete in a paper, the authors will be contacted to provide any necessary data.

2.5 Data analysis and presentation

The complete findings of the literature search and study selection process will be fully disclosed in the final scoping review, accompanied by a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram as depicted in Figure 1.²⁴ The extracted data will be analysed using Qualcoder 1.9 computer software in a narrative format. A comprehensive table will be presented, detailing the frequency of usage and components assessed for each narrative account of the existing literature. Furthermore, each questionnaire will be summarized narratively to provide additional context.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers.

Quality assessment

We will evaluate the quality of the included studies to ensure that the study design aligns with our research objectives and that studies are accurately reported to minimize bias, we will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018²⁸ to assess the appropriateness of the aim, methodological and study design accuracy, recruitment strategies, data collection, data analysis, findings, discussions, and conclusions of the authors. Additionally, we will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool²⁹ to assess the confidence in each finding of the study.

3. Discussion

Increasingly, health services are focusing on capturing patient perceptions of their vision status.³⁰ Even in ophthalmic research, quality of life measurement is being recognized as a key supplemental indicator.¹⁷ Traditionally, eye care professionals have relied on the results of clinical examinations to determine the impact of vision problems on children, or sometimes from the observations of parents (proxies) or teachers.³¹ This has been an important method to rely on since it has always been difficult for the child to express their vision problems.³² However, it is questionable whether measurements like visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual field, etc. can accurately represent the child’s perspective.²⁹ Quality-of-life tools have been reported to serve as reliable, relevant, and cost-effective methods to assess, to an extent, the impact of vision problems on children.³³ It is self-reported, and it is better than the proxy. Moreover, studies have shown that children can answer any HR-QoL questionnaire reliably if their reading skills, cognitive capacity, and emotional development were considered during the development of those questionnaires.¹⁹^,³³

Several instruments to measure the quality of life (QoL) in adults have been developed and validated elsewhere and found to exhibit good reliability. However, not enough has been done to develop these instruments for school-aged children.³⁰ In most cases, these tools designed for adults need to be modified first before being used in children, and the process of modifications may compromise the already established reliability and validity. The WHO QoL group recommended that ideally, each country should develop its own instrument to measure the impact on any disease and treatment, which is culture-sensitive and age-appropriate.¹³ This will help the learner to honestly evaluate himself, rather than be evaluated by the test results from the eye care practitioner. The QoL instrument can also be used in assessing the effectiveness of management strategies or even disease progression. Therefore, this review aims to map all available vision-specific HR-QoL instruments used for children.

4. Conclusion

The literature analysed in this study will assist in developing quality-of-life tools tailored to specific contexts, including Africa. Furthermore, the results of this study will be critical to guiding practice, informing social security policies, and guiding practices related to children.

Author contributions

TSS, RH, and ZXK conceptualized the project, TSS and SJN developed the methodology, ZXK administered the project, and TSS and SJN drafted and edited the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics and consent

While ethical clearance is not mandatory for this study, we have obtained it from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the University of KwaZulu Natal under the reference BREC/00003939/2022, which covers the larger study of which this review is a part. The findings of this scoping review and meta-analysis will be shared through various channels, including electronic and print media, conference presentations, and key stakeholder meetings.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

OSF: Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of Health-Related Quality Of Life (HR-QOL) for children and adolescents with visual impairment: A Scoping Review. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9HW8C.³⁴

Zenodo: PRISMA-ScR checklist for ‘Protocol for scoping review: instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment’. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.11485472.³⁵

Zenodo: Supplementary Documents instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. Scoping review protocol. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.11642275.³⁶

This project contains the following extended data:

- MeSH terms
- Search strategies with MeSH descriptors and truncation
- Data extraction instrument

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgments

This study would like to express its gratitude to two librarians, namely Elma Van Der Merwe, Chief Officer of Library & Information Services at the University of Free State, and Pravina Laljeeth, Information Specialist & Senior Research librarian at the University of KwaZulu Natal. They provided invaluable assistance with the search strategies used in this study.

References

1. WHO: International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems - 10th revision.2011. (accessed 25 May 2022). Reference Source
2. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, et al.: Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull. World Health Organ. 2008; 86: 63–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. WHO: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) Classification.2022. (accessed 05 May 2022). Reference Source
4. Falkenberg HK, Langaas T, Svarverud E: Vision status of children aged 7-15 years referred from school vision screening in Norway during 2003-2013: A retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019; 19: 180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Khadka J, Ryan B, Margrain TH, et al.: Development of the 25-item Cardiff Visual Ability Questionnaire for Children (CVAQC). Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2010; 94: 730–735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Naipal S, Rampersad N: A review of visual impairment. Afr. Vis. Eye Health. 2018; 77: 4.
7. WHO: Prevention of Blindness and Deafness. Available data on blindness, update 2006.2021. (accessed 07 April 2022). Reference Source
8. Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, et al.: Refractive error in children in a rural population in India. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002; 43: 615–622. PubMed Abstract
9. Adeoti CO: Beliefs and attitude towards spectacles. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2009; 12: 359–361. PubMed Abstract
10. Rahi JS, Dezateux C: Epidemiology of visual impairment in Britain. Arch. Dis. Child. 1998; 78: 381–386. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Cai T, Verze P, Bjerklund Johansen TE: The Quality of Life Definition: Where Are We Going? Uro. 2021; 1: 14–22. Publisher Full Text
12. WHOQOL Group: Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument. Division of Mental Health, World Health Organization; 1994; vol. 2. : 153–159.
13. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995; 41: 1403–1409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Kumaran SE, Balasubramaniam SM, Kumar DS, et al.: Refractive Error and Vision-Related Quality of Life in South Indian Children. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2015; 92: 272–278. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Tadić V, Cooper A, Cumberland P, et al.: Measuring the quality of life of visually impaired children: first stage psychometric evaluation of the novel VQoL_CYP instrument. PLoS One. 2016; 11: 1–15.
16. De Civita M, Regier D, Alamgir AH, et al.: Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: Some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications. PharmacoEconomics. 2005; 23: 659–685. Publisher Full Text
17. Birch EE, Cheng CS, Felius J: Validity and reliability of the Children’s Visual Function Questionnaire (CVFQ). J. AAPOS. 2007; 11: 473–479. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, et al.: The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2007; 84: 663–674. Publisher Full Text
19. Riley AW: Evidence that school-age children can self-report on their health. Ambul. Pediatr. 2004; 4: 371–376. Publisher Full Text
20. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, et al.: Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: Methodological considerations. PharmacoEconomics. 2006; 24: 1199–1220. Publisher Full Text
21. Margolis MK, Coyne K, Kennedy-Martin T, et al.: Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning: A literature review. PharmacoEconomics. 2002; 20: 791–812. Publisher Full Text
22. Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005; 8: 19–32. Publisher Full Text
23. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010; 5: 69–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018; 169: 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Aromataris E, Munn Z: Introduction to Scoping reviews. JBI Manuals Evid Synth. 2020. (Accessed 12 April 2022). Reference Source
26. Berk L: The field of child development. Child Development New York, NY, USA: Pearson; 9th ed.2013; pp. 4–6.
27. Piper C: System for the unified management, assessment, and review of information (SUMARI). J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2019; 107: 634–636. Publisher Full Text
28. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al.: The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf. 2018; 34: 285–291. Publisher Full Text
29. GRADE Welcome to the GRADE working group: From evidence to recommendations – transparent and sensible. (accessed 08 April 2022). Reference Source
30. Tadić V, Cooper A, Cumberland P, et al.: Measuring the quality of life of visually impaired children: First stage psychometric evaluation of the novel VQoL - CYP instrument. PLoS One. 2016; 1: 11.
31. Angeles-Han ST, Griffin KW, Harrison MJ, et al.: Development of a vision-related quality of life instrument for children ages 8-18 years for use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63: 1254–1261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Gothwal V, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Nutheti R: The development of the LV Prasad-Functional Vision Questionnaire: a measure of functional vision performance of visually impaired children. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003; 44: 4131–4139. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Misajon RA, Hawthorne G, Richardson J, et al.: Vision and quality of life: The development of a utility measure. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005; 46: 4007–4015. Publisher Full Text
34. Magakwe TSS, Masemola HC, Nkambule SJ, et al.: Vision-Specific Instruments For The Assessment Of Health-Related Quality Of Life (HR-QOL) For Children And Adolescents With Visual Impairment: A Scoping Review.2023. (accessed 05 June 2024). Publisher Full Text
35. Magakwe TSS, Hansraj R, Nkambule SJ, et al.: Protocol for scoping review: instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. PRISMA-ScR Checklist. Zenodo. 2024. (accessed 05 June 2024). Publisher Full Text
36. Magakwe TSS, Hansraj R, Xulu-Kasaba ZN: Supplementary Documents instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. Scoping review protocol. Zenodo. 2024. (accessed 13 June 2024). Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Optometry, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, 4000, South Africa
² Public Health Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, 4000, South Africa

Tshubelela Sello Simon Magakwe
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rekha Hansraj
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sphamandla Josias Nkambule
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Zamadonda Nokuthula Queen Xulu-Kasaba
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 04 Jul 2024, 13:740

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151839.1

Copyright

© 2024 Magakwe TSS et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Magakwe TSS, Hansraj R, Nkambule SJ and Xulu-Kasaba ZNQ. Protocol for scoping review: Instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:740 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151839.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024

Views

8

Reviewer Report 19 Aug 2024

Ekemiri Kingsley, Department of Optometry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166525.r308974

The article outlines a scoping review aimed at creating a context-specific HR-QoL instrument for children in an African setting, using existing data. The review follows Arksey and O’Malley’s framework (2005) and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). It ... Continue reading

The article outlines a scoping review aimed at creating a context-specific HR-QoL instrument for children in an African setting, using existing data. The review follows Arksey and O’Malley’s framework (2005) and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). It involves five stages: defining the review question, searching for studies, selecting studies, charting data, and summarizing findings. The methodology includes detailed steps for searching and selecting studies, data extraction, and analysis but has some gaps that affect its replicability and the clarity of the datasets presented.

1. Details of the Methods for Replication: Partly Adequate

Issue: The article provides an overview of the search strategy, eligibility criteria, data extraction tool, data analysis approach, and quality assessment methods. However, several critical details necessary for full replication are missing.

- Eligibility Criteria: The criteria for excluding gray literature are not sufficiently detailed or justified. The authors should clarify why gray literature is excluded and how this aligns with the study’s objectives. Consider including some gray literature if it contributes significantly to the research question.
-Offer a detailed rationale for excluding gray literature.
- Consider including gray literature if it provides significant insights.

-Data Extraction Tool: While the data extraction tool is mentioned, there is no information on how it was pretested or validated. The methodology should detail the development, pretesting, and validation of the tool, and document any modifications with justifications.
- Describe how the tool was developed, pretested, and validated.
Document any changes to the tool and provide justifications.

- Data Analysis: The approach to data analysis using Qualcoder 1.9 is outlined but lacks specifics on how themes will be identified, coded, and reported. Provide a step-by-step process and examples of coding to enhance clarity.
- Include a detailed process for data analysis using Qualcoder.
-Provide examples or a coding framework to illustrate how themes will be generated and analyzed.
Outline Quality Assessment Methods:

- Quality Assessment: The application of MMAT and GRADE tools is mentioned without clear criteria or processes. The authors should outline specific criteria for each tool and describe how discrepancies in quality assessment will be resolved.
- Detail the criteria for applying MMAT and GRADE tools.
- Explain the process for resolving discrepancies in quality assessment.

Quality Assessment: The application of MMAT and GRADE tools is mentioned without clear criteria or processes. The authors should outline specific criteria for each tool and describe how discrepancies in quality assessment will be resolved.
- Ensure datasets are clear, organized, and available in accessible formats.
- Include comprehensive metadata and documentation for clarity and usability.

2. Datasets Presentation: Not Adequate
The datasets are not clearly presented in a usable and accessible format. The details on how data will be organized and shared are insufficient.

-Include detailed documentation on how data was extracted, organized, and any modifications made during the review process.

- Provide tables of the articles selected, this should include. Study Characteristics, Population, Characteristics, descriptions of any interventions, tools, or instruments, The outcomes measured in the studies, Themes or Concepts, Methodological Details:

- Lack of detail on inter-rater reliability assessment and resolution of disagreements. Include a plan for assessing inter-rater reliability and a protocol for resolving disagreements.

- The PRISMA-ScR fillable checklist is incomplete, the author should make effort to complete this form.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Low Vision, Pediatric eye care, Visual Impairment, and Public Health.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

10

Reviewer Report 19 Aug 2024

Ellen B M Elsman, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166525.r308968

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to identify vision-specific instruments for health-related quality of life in children with visual impairment. The protocol is well written, but I have some concerns about the search strategy and methodology.
... Continue reading

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to identify vision-specific instruments for health-related quality of life in children with visual impairment. The protocol is well written, but I have some concerns about the search strategy and methodology.

The aim is threefold. First, the use and accessibility of vision-specific instruments that assess the HRQoL in children and adolescents with VI will be mapped. This seems to be the main aim. However, it is unclear from the methods how exactly the accessibility will be evaluated.
Second, studies that focus on HRQoL in children and adolescents with VI will be synthesized. But it is unclear what exactly will be synthesized, and what studies will be included. For example, will the authors also include qualitative studies focusing on HRQoL of children with VI? Looking at the eligibility criteria, this indeed seems the case. I'm wondering how this relates to the first and third objective, that mainly focus on instruments used in children with VI. This second objective seems a lot broader and potentially out of place.
Third, a description of the psychometric properties of the instruments will be given. What psychometric properties will be considered, and how will the authors describe the psychometric properties? Will for example tools from the COSMIN initiative be used?

The search strategy seems very limited. For example, if I look for some of the search terms at blocks.bmi-online, larger search blocks can be found. I question whether all relevant publications will be found using this search strategy. Focusing the research aim might also give options for optimizing the search strategy.

A risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence is planned. However, these are not usual steps in a scoping review, but seem more relevant for a systematic review. I advise the authors to take a critical look whether these are indeed applicable to their aims.

Also, some literature seems to be omitted. For example Rainey, Khadka, Elsman and Adhikari have done important work in the field of low vision of children and adolescents in recent years, including scale development.

All in all, although the protocol is well written, the research aim lacks focus, and the methods are not specific enough. Improving the research aim could result in a clearer description of the methods, although the search strategy needs to be improved as well based on the improved aim, to make sure all relevant studies are included.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Systematic reviews of PROMs/instruments, children/adolescents/young adults with visual impairment, scale construction and validation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 04 Jul 24	read	read

Ellen B M Elsman, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ekemiri Kingsley, The University of the West Indies, Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

19 Aug 2024 | for Version 1

Ekemiri Kingsley, Department of Optometry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The article outlines a scoping review aimed at creating a context-specific HR-QoL instrument for children in an African setting, using existing data. The review follows Arksey and O’Malley’s framework (2005) and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). It involves five stages: defining the review question, searching for studies, selecting studies, charting data, and summarizing findings. The methodology includes detailed steps for searching and selecting studies, data extraction, and analysis but has some gaps that affect its replicability and the clarity of the datasets presented.

1. Details of the Methods for Replication: Partly Adequate

Issue: The article provides an overview of the search strategy, eligibility criteria, data extraction tool, data analysis approach, and quality assessment methods. However, several critical details necessary for full replication are missing.

- Eligibility Criteria: The criteria for excluding gray literature are not sufficiently detailed or justified. The authors should clarify why gray literature is excluded and how this aligns with the study’s objectives. Consider including some gray literature if it contributes significantly to the research question.
-Offer a detailed rationale for excluding gray literature.
- Consider including gray literature if it provides significant insights.

-Data Extraction Tool: While the data extraction tool is mentioned, there is no information on how it was pretested or validated. The methodology should detail the development, pretesting, and validation of the tool, and document any modifications with justifications.
- Describe how the tool was developed, pretested, and validated.
Document any changes to the tool and provide justifications.

- Data Analysis: The approach to data analysis using Qualcoder 1.9 is outlined but lacks specifics on how themes will be identified, coded, and reported. Provide a step-by-step process and examples of coding to enhance clarity.
- Include a detailed process for data analysis using Qualcoder.
-Provide examples or a coding framework to illustrate how themes will be generated and analyzed.
Outline Quality Assessment Methods:

- Quality Assessment: The application of MMAT and GRADE tools is mentioned without clear criteria or processes. The authors should outline specific criteria for each tool and describe how discrepancies in quality assessment will be resolved.
- Detail the criteria for applying MMAT and GRADE tools.
- Explain the process for resolving discrepancies in quality assessment.

Quality Assessment: The application of MMAT and GRADE tools is mentioned without clear criteria or processes. The authors should outline specific criteria for each tool and describe how discrepancies in quality assessment will be resolved.
- Ensure datasets are clear, organized, and available in accessible formats.
- Include comprehensive metadata and documentation for clarity and usability.

2. Datasets Presentation: Not Adequate
The datasets are not clearly presented in a usable and accessible format. The details on how data will be organized and shared are insufficient.

-Include detailed documentation on how data was extracted, organized, and any modifications made during the review process.

- Provide tables of the articles selected, this should include. Study Characteristics, Population, Characteristics, descriptions of any interventions, tools, or instruments, The outcomes measured in the studies, Themes or Concepts, Methodological Details:

- Lack of detail on inter-rater reliability assessment and resolution of disagreements. Include a plan for assessing inter-rater reliability and a protocol for resolving disagreements.

- The PRISMA-ScR fillable checklist is incomplete, the author should make effort to complete this form.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Low Vision, Pediatric eye care, Visual Impairment, and Public Health.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

19 Aug 2024 | for Version 1

Ellen B M Elsman, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

10 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to identify vision-specific instruments for health-related quality of life in children with visual impairment. The protocol is well written, but I have some concerns about the search strategy and methodology.

The aim is threefold. First, the use and accessibility of vision-specific instruments that assess the HRQoL in children and adolescents with VI will be mapped. This seems to be the main aim. However, it is unclear from the methods how exactly the accessibility will be evaluated.
Second, studies that focus on HRQoL in children and adolescents with VI will be synthesized. But it is unclear what exactly will be synthesized, and what studies will be included. For example, will the authors also include qualitative studies focusing on HRQoL of children with VI? Looking at the eligibility criteria, this indeed seems the case. I'm wondering how this relates to the first and third objective, that mainly focus on instruments used in children with VI. This second objective seems a lot broader and potentially out of place.
Third, a description of the psychometric properties of the instruments will be given. What psychometric properties will be considered, and how will the authors describe the psychometric properties? Will for example tools from the COSMIN initiative be used?

The search strategy seems very limited. For example, if I look for some of the search terms at blocks.bmi-online, larger search blocks can be found. I question whether all relevant publications will be found using this search strategy. Focusing the research aim might also give options for optimizing the search strategy.

A risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence is planned. However, these are not usual steps in a scoping review, but seem more relevant for a systematic review. I advise the authors to take a critical look whether these are indeed applicable to their aims.

Also, some literature seems to be omitted. For example Rainey, Khadka, Elsman and Adhikari have done important work in the field of low vision of children and adolescents in recent years, including scale development.

All in all, although the protocol is well written, the research aim lacks focus, and the methods are not specific enough. Improving the research aim could result in a clearer description of the methods, although the search strategy needs to be improved as well based on the improved aim, to make sure all relevant studies are included.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Systematic reviews of PROMs/instruments, children/adolescents/young adults with visual impairment, scale construction and validation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. WHO: International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems - 10th revision.2011. (accessed 25 May 2022). Reference Source

[2] 2. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, et al.: Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull. World Health Organ. 2008; 86: 63–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. WHO: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) Classification.2022. (accessed 05 May 2022). Reference Source

[4] 4. Falkenberg HK, Langaas T, Svarverud E: Vision status of children aged 7-15 years referred from school vision screening in Norway during 2003-2013: A retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019; 19: 180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Khadka J, Ryan B, Margrain TH, et al.: Development of the 25-item Cardiff Visual Ability Questionnaire for Children (CVAQC). Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2010; 94: 730–735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Naipal S, Rampersad N: A review of visual impairment. Afr. Vis. Eye Health. 2018; 77: 4.

[7] 7. WHO: Prevention of Blindness and Deafness. Available data on blindness, update 2006.2021. (accessed 07 April 2022). Reference Source

[8] 8. Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, et al.: Refractive error in children in a rural population in India. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002; 43: 615–622. PubMed Abstract

[9] 9. Adeoti CO: Beliefs and attitude towards spectacles. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2009; 12: 359–361. PubMed Abstract

[10] 10. Rahi JS, Dezateux C: Epidemiology of visual impairment in Britain. Arch. Dis. Child. 1998; 78: 381–386. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Cai T, Verze P, Bjerklund Johansen TE: The Quality of Life Definition: Where Are We Going? Uro. 2021; 1: 14–22. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. WHOQOL Group: Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument. Division of Mental Health, World Health Organization; 1994; vol. 2. : 153–159.

[13] 13. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995; 41: 1403–1409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Kumaran SE, Balasubramaniam SM, Kumar DS, et al.: Refractive Error and Vision-Related Quality of Life in South Indian Children. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2015; 92: 272–278. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Tadić V, Cooper A, Cumberland P, et al.: Measuring the quality of life of visually impaired children: first stage psychometric evaluation of the novel VQoL_CYP instrument. PLoS One. 2016; 11: 1–15.

[16] 16. De Civita M, Regier D, Alamgir AH, et al.: Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: Some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications. PharmacoEconomics. 2005; 23: 659–685. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Birch EE, Cheng CS, Felius J: Validity and reliability of the Children’s Visual Function Questionnaire (CVFQ). J. AAPOS. 2007; 11: 473–479. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, et al.: The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2007; 84: 663–674. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Riley AW: Evidence that school-age children can self-report on their health. Ambul. Pediatr. 2004; 4: 371–376. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, et al.: Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: Methodological considerations. PharmacoEconomics. 2006; 24: 1199–1220. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Margolis MK, Coyne K, Kennedy-Martin T, et al.: Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning: A literature review. PharmacoEconomics. 2002; 20: 791–812. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005; 8: 19–32. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010; 5: 69–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018; 169: 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Aromataris E, Munn Z: Introduction to Scoping reviews. JBI Manuals Evid Synth. 2020. (Accessed 12 April 2022). Reference Source

[26] 26. Berk L: The field of child development. Child Development New York, NY, USA: Pearson; 9th ed.2013; pp. 4–6.

[27] 27. Piper C: System for the unified management, assessment, and review of information (SUMARI). J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2019; 107: 634–636. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al.: The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf. 2018; 34: 285–291. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. GRADE Welcome to the GRADE working group: From evidence to recommendations – transparent and sensible. (accessed 08 April 2022). Reference Source

[30] 30. Tadić V, Cooper A, Cumberland P, et al.: Measuring the quality of life of visually impaired children: First stage psychometric evaluation of the novel VQoL - CYP instrument. PLoS One. 2016; 1: 11.

[31] 31. Angeles-Han ST, Griffin KW, Harrison MJ, et al.: Development of a vision-related quality of life instrument for children ages 8-18 years for use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63: 1254–1261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Gothwal V, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Nutheti R: The development of the LV Prasad-Functional Vision Questionnaire: a measure of functional vision performance of visually impaired children. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003; 44: 4131–4139. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Misajon RA, Hawthorne G, Richardson J, et al.: Vision and quality of life: The development of a utility measure. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005; 46: 4007–4015. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Magakwe TSS, Masemola HC, Nkambule SJ, et al.: Vision-Specific Instruments For The Assessment Of Health-Related Quality Of Life (HR-QOL) For Children And Adolescents With Visual Impairment: A Scoping Review.2023. (accessed 05 June 2024). Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Magakwe TSS, Hansraj R, Nkambule SJ, et al.: Protocol for scoping review: instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. PRISMA-ScR Checklist. Zenodo. 2024. (accessed 05 June 2024). Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Magakwe TSS, Hansraj R, Xulu-Kasaba ZN: Supplementary Documents instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment. Scoping review protocol. Zenodo. 2024. (accessed 13 June 2024). Publisher Full Text

Protocol for scoping review: Instruments for assessing vision-specific health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with visual impairment.

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

1.1 Objectives

2. Methods

2.1 Review question

Table 1. PCC framework for determining the eligibility of the research questions.

2.2 Search strategy

Table 2. Search strategy pilot search result from PubMed database.

2.3 Eligibility criteria

Table 3. Eligibility criteria according to the PCCd-T nomenclature criteria.

2.4 Data extraction

2.5 Data analysis and presentation

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers.

3. Discussion

4. Conclusion

Author contributions

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Extended data

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated