Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge about benefits and risks of undergoing cataract surgery among cataract patients in Southern China

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a theoretical framework for assessing knowledge about the possible outcomes of undergoing cataract surgery, and explore the association of knowledge level with psychological status and decision quality among patients with cataract in Southern China.

Methods

The details of the knowledge scale were based on the health education information booklet provided by National Eye Institute, NIH. We used a theory-based approach to assess gist knowledge, which comprises 12 questions related to knowledge of the possible surgical outcomes. The scale was then used in a cross-sectional study to assess the association of knowledge score with psychological status and decision quality among cataract patients.

Results

A total of 489 participants with age-related cataract were included in this study, and 10.2% (50/489) of them had adequate level of knowledge. The knowledge scale was significantly associated to the levels of worry (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.18, 0.70; P = 0.003), anxiety (beta coefficient = − 5.36, 95%CI − 8.88, − 1.84; P = 0.003), inaction regret (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.28, 0.88; P = 0.016) and decision conflict (beta coefficient = − 7.93, 95%CI − 12.81, − 3.04; P = 0.002) in multivariate analyses adjusted for age, sex, education level and literacy level.

Conclusion

Knowledge adequacy with cataract surgery outcomes was negatively associated with cataract worry, anxiety and decisional conflict. Patients with adequate knowledge were more likely to postpone cataract surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Our data will be available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Liu Y-C, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS (2017) Cataracts. The Lancet 390(10094):600–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30544-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kessel L, Andresen J, Erngaard D, Flesner P, Tendal B, Hjortdal J (2016) Indication for cataract surgery. Do we have evidence of who will benefit from surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol 94(1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Song P, Wang H, Theodoratou E, Chan KY, Rudan I (2018) The national and subnational prevalence of cataract and cataract blindness in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Global Health 8 (1)

  4. Javed U, McVeigh K, Scott NW, Azuara-Blanco A (2015) Cataract extraction and patient vision-related quality of life: a cohort study. Eye (Lond) 29(7):921–925. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, Sheridan SL, Braddock CH 3rd, Kaplan RM, Krist A, O'Connor AM, Tunis S (2005) Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med 143(4):293–300. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-4-200508160-00010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle V, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner DR (2007) Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making 27(5):554–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07307319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martinez-Alonso M, Carles-Lavila M, Perez-Lacasta MJ, Pons-Rodriguez A, Garcia M, Rue M, InforMa G (2017) Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 7(10):e016894. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016894

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

  9. Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, Houssami N, Irwig L, Jacklyn G, Dhillon H, Thornton H, McGeechan K, Howard K, McCaffery K (2014) The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 4(5):e004990. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004990

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang S, Li B, Ungvari GS, Ng CH, Chiu HF, Kou C, Liu Y, Tao Y, Wu Y, Fu Y, Qi Y, Yu Y, Xiang YT (2016) Poor mental health status and its associations with demographic characteristics and chronic diseases in Chinese elderly. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 51(10):1449–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1271-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman EE, Gresset J, Djafari F, Aubin MJ, Couture S, Bruen R, Laporte A, Boisjoly H (2009) Cataract-related vision loss and depression in a cohort of patients awaiting cataract surgery 1 2. Can J Ophthalmol J Can Dophtalmol 44(2):171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu M, Yu J, Zhang J, Yan Q, Liu Y (2015) Evaluating vision-related quality of life in preoperative age-related cataract patients and analyzing its influencing factors in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Ophthalmol 15:160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0150-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Eramudugolla R, Wood J, Anstey KJ (2013) Co-morbidity of depression and anxiety in common age-related eye diseases: a population-based study of 662 adults. Front Aging Neurosci 5:56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2013.00056

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chiu HFK, Yip PSF, Chi I, Chan S, Tsoh J, Kwan CW, Li SF, Conwell Y, Caine E (2010) Elderly suicide in Hong Kong–a case-controlled psychological autopsy study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 109(4):299–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weingessel B, Wahl M, Huf W, Vecsei-Marlovits PV (2019) Decision-making for cataract surgery: changes within 7 years. Acta Ophthalmol 97(1):e139–e140. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sepucha K, Atlas SJ, Chang Y, Dorrwachter J, Freiberg A, Mangla M, Rubash HE, Simmons LH, Cha T (2017) Patient decision aids improve decision quality and patient experience and reduce surgical rates in routine orthopaedic care: a prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(15):1253–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. National Institutes of Health NEI (2015) Cataract What You Should Know. https://nei.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health-pdfs/WYSK_Cataract_English_Sept2015_PRINT.pdf.

  18. Reyna VF (2008) A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making 28(6):850–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08327066

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ (1995) Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learn Ind Differ 7(1):1–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF (2009) How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull 135(6):943–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. He M, Foster PJ, Ge J, Huang W, Zheng Y, Friedman DS, Lee PS, Khaw PT (2006) Prevalence and clinical characteristics of glaucoma in adult Chinese: a population-based study in Liwan District. Guangzhou Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(7):2782–2788. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM (2006) Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns 61(1):56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gwyn K, Vernon SW, Conoley PM (2003) Intention to pursue genetic testing for breast cancer among women due for screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Prevent Biomark 12(2):96–102

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, Irwig L, McGeechan K, Jacklyn G, Thornton H, Dhillon H, Houssami N, McCaffery K (2015) Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 385(9978):1642–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60123-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marteau TM, Bekker H (1992) The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 31(3):301–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tluczek A, Henriques JB, Brown RL (2009) Support for the reliability and validity of a six-item state anxiety scale derived from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. J Nurs Meas 17(1):19–28. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.17.1.19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ma WF, Liu YC, Chen YF, Lane HY, Lai TJ, Huang LC (2013) Evaluation of psychometric properties of the Chinese Mandarin version State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Y form in Taiwanese outpatients with anxiety disorders. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 20(6):499–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01945.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ (2010) A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341:c5370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5370

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U, Kugelberg M, Lundstrom M (2011) One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register 1992–2009. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(8):1539–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Connor A (1993) User manual-decisional conflict scale. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 1993

  31. Lam WW, Kwok M, Liao Q, Chan M, Or A, Kwong A, Suen D, Fielding R (2015) Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the decisional conflict scale in Chinese women making decision for breast cancer surgery. Health Expect 18(2):210–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. AM OC (1995) Decision Self-Efficacy Scale—user manual https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/eval_self.html.

  33. O'Connor AM (1995) Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale. Med Decis Making 15(1):25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9501500105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ziarnowski KL, Brewer NT, Weber B (2009) Present choices, future outcomes: anticipated regret and HPV vaccination. Prev Med 48(5):411–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.10.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN (1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(6):1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, Edwards CS (1994) The Consideration of Future Consequences: Weighing Immediate and Distant Outcomes of Behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 66(4):742–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baker M, Stabile M, Deri C (2004) What do self-reported, objective, measures of health measure? Journal of human Resources 39(4):1067–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith SK, Barratt A, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Jansen J, McCaffery KJ (2012) A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials. Patient Educ Couns 89(2):330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Silvia K, Partridge A, Mulley AG Jr (2007) An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ Couns 65(2):261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.08.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR (2010) The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 32(8):676–682. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Frost J, Shaw A, Montgomery A, Murphy DJ (2009) Women's views on the use of decision aids for decision making about the method of delivery following a previous caesarean section: qualitative interview study. BJOG 116(7):896–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02120.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Newman-Casey PA, Ravilla S, Haripriya A, Palanichamy V, Pillai M, Balakrishnan V, Robin AL (2015) The effect of counseling on cataract patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 22(6):387–393. https://doi.org/10.3109/09286586.2015.1066016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Raynes-Greenow CH, Barratt A, Peat B, Decision Aid for Breech Presentation Trial C (2007) Evaluation of a decision aid for women with breech presentation at term: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN14570598]. BJOG 114(3):325–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01206.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Brazell HD, O'Sullivan DM, Forrest A, Greene JF (2015) Effect of a decision aid on decision making for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 21(4):231–235. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81530028; 81721003), the Guangdong Province Science and Technology Plan (2014B020228002), the National Key Basic Research and 973 Development Program of China (2015CB964600), Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program, Clinical Innovation Research Program of Guangzhou Regenerative Medicine and Health Guangdong Laboratory (2018GZR0201001); the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University. The authors designed, conducted and reported the study independently of the funding body throughout.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Guofang Ye and Bo Qu have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Guofang Ye, Bo Qu, Wen Shi, Xin Chen, Pengjuan Ma, Yuxin Zhong, Shida Chen & Yingfeng Zheng

  2. Population Health and Epidemiology Program, Singapore Eye Research Institute (SERI), Singapore, Singapore

    Ecosse Lamoureux

Authors
  1. Guofang Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bo Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wen Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pengjuan Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuxin Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shida Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ecosse Lamoureux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yingfeng Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GY, BQ, WS, XC, PM, SC, EL, and Yingfeng Z contributed to the conception and design of the study and study protocol. Yingfeng Z performed statistical analysis. Yuxin Z oversaw data acquisition and implementation on site. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingfeng Zheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

Ethical approval

The research was approved by the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center Ethics Committee (Approval No.: 2017KYPJ066). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ye, G., Qu, B., Shi, W. et al. Knowledge about benefits and risks of undergoing cataract surgery among cataract patients in Southern China. Int Ophthalmol 40, 2889–2899 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01473-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01473-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation