The MacDQOL Individualized Measure of the Impact of Macular Disease on Quality of Life

  • Jan Mitchell
  • Alison Woodcock
  • Clare Bradley


The MacDQOL is an individualized measure of the impact of  macular disease (MD) on quality of life. It was designed with reference to people who had MD, using focus groups, and to the literature. An early draft was pilot tested with a postal study in which participants (N = 65) were recruited from the membership of the UK Macular Disease Society. This study showed significant differences in MacDQOL scores between people who were not registered and those who were registered blind (p < 0.001) or partially sighted (p < 0.001) and the findings offered early evidence of  construct validity.

There followed a  longitudinal study (N = 156) to enable further validation of the MacDQOL. Participants were recruited from an ophthalmic specialist’s patient list.  Principal components analysis revealed a single scale with excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.946).  Test-retest reliability was excellent with MacDQOL scores at time 1 and time 2 highly correlated (r = 0.946) and no differences in scores between time 1 and time 2 (p = 0.85). Construct validity was demonstrated by the MacDQOL’s sensitivity to several measures of vision (near and distance  visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, reading speed, color recognition). There was some correlational evidence of responsiveness to change in vision over time.

Good response rates and completion rates indicated that the MacDQOL is acceptable to participants and does not impose too great a burden.

The MacDQOL has been used in clinical trials and a number of other studies. Evidence to date indicates that MD has a negative impact on the quality of life of people with the condition and that the negative impact increases with increasing severity of MD. The MacDQOL promises to be a valuable tool in the investigation of changes in patients’ quality of life in clinical trials of medical treatments and rehabilitative interventions.


Impact Score Importance Rating Importance Score Macular Degeneration Distance Visual Acuity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of Abbreviations:


audit of diabetes dependent quality of life


average weighted impact


 functional status


health status


low vision quality of life measure


macular disease dependent quality of life measure


macular disease


Macular Disease Society


National Eye Institute vision function questionnaire – 25 item


quality of life


diabetic  retinopathy dependent quality of life measure


schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life


visual acuity


  1. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, Taylor HR. (1991). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 32: 422–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berdeaux G, Mesbah M, Bradley C. (2006). Value Health. 9: A372–A373.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley C. (1997). Adv Perit Dial. 13: 116–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley C. (2001). Lancet. 357(9249): 7–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley C, Speight J. (2002). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 18 Suppl 3: S64–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley C, Todd C, Gorton T, Symonds E, Martin A, Plowright R. (1999). Qual Life Res. 8: 79–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brose L, Watkins J, Bradley C. (2007). 2007 International Society for Quality of Life Research meeting abstracts ( The QLR Journal. A-60, Abstract 1198.
  8. Chisholm IH. (1998). Optom Today. August 1998: 39–42.Google Scholar
  9. Covert D, Berdeaux G, Mitchell J, Bradley C, Barnes R. (2007). Surv Ophthalmol. 52: S20–S25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DAFNE Study Group. (2002). BMJ. 325: 746–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH. (2004). Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 24: 257–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman DS, O’Colmain BJ, Munoz B, Tomany SC, McCarty C, de Jong PT, et al. (2004). Arch Ophthalmol. 122: 564–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frost NA, Sparrow JM, Hopper CD, Peters TJ. (2001). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 8: 1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gill TM, Feinstein AR. (1994). JAMA. 272: 619–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joyce CRB. (1994). In: McGee HM, Bradley C (eds.). Quality of Life Following Renal Failure: Psychosocial Challenges Accompanying High Technology Medicine. Harwood Academic, Chur, Switzerland, pp. 43–54.Google Scholar
  16. Kaiser PK, Do DV. (2007). Int J Clin Pract. 61: 501–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kinmonth AL, Woodcock A, Griffin S, Spiegal N, Campbell MJ. (1998). BMJ. 317: 1202–1208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. (2001). Arch Ophthalmol. 119: 1050–1058.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, Lawrence MG, Cook EF, Dailey R, et al. (1992). Med Care. 30: 1111–1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGee HM, O’Boyle CA, Hickey A, O’Malley K, Joyce CR. (1991). Psychol Med. 21: 749–759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McMillan C, Bradley C, Razvi S, Weaver J. (2008). Value Health. 11(2): 285–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMillan CV, Bradley C, Gibney J, Russell-Jones DL, Sonksen PH. (2006). J Eval Clin Pract. 12: 501–514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McMillan CV, Bradley C, Giannoulis M, Martin F, Sonksen PH. (2003). Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1: 51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McMillan CV, Honeyford RJ, Datta J, Madge NJ, Bradley C. (2004). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2: 61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell J, Bradley C. (2004). Qual Life Res. 13: 1163–1175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell J, Bradley P, Anderson SJ, ffytche T, Bradley C. (2002). Br J Ophthalmol. 86: 777–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell J, Wolffsohn JS, Woodcock A, Anderson SJ, ffytche T, Rubinstein M, et al. (2008). Am J Ophthalmol, 146: 447–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell J, Wolffsohn JS, Woodcock A, Anderson SJ, McMillan CV, ffytche T, et al. (2005). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 3: 25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell J, Woodcock A, Bradley C. (2004). Qual Life Res, 13: 1548 (abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Statistics Online. (2004). Population Estimates. Available at:
  31. Nobre F, Trotta L, Gomes L. (1999). Stat Med. 18: 3345–3354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oppenheim A. (1968). Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. Heinemann Educational, London.Google Scholar
  33. Owen CG, Fletcher AE, Donoghue M, Rudnicka AR. (2003). Br J Ophthalmol. 87: 312–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, et al. (2004). Bull World Health Org. 82: 844–851.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Russell IT. (1999). Qual Health Care. 8: 22–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Speight J, Amiel S, Bradley C, Heller S, James P, Oliver L, et al. (2007). Diabetic Med. 24(Suppl 1): 95, 224.Google Scholar
  37. Speight J, Woodcock A, Plowright R, Bradley C. (2003). Qual Life Res. 12: 863.Google Scholar
  38. Wee HL, Tan CE, Goh SY, Li SC. (2006). Pharmacoeconomics. 24: 673–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WHO. (2004). Magnitude and causes of visual impairment. Available at:, retrieved on 12 March, 2006.
  40. Wilson RJ, Christie MJ, Bradley C. (1998). Diabetic Med. 15(Suppl 2): 122–123.Google Scholar
  41. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. (2000). Am J Ophthalmol. 130: 793–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL, Watt NA. (2000). Br J Ophthalmol. 84: 1035–1040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Woodcock A, Bradley C, Plowright R, ffytche T, Kennedy-Martin T, Hirsch A. (2004). Patient Educ Couns. 53: 365–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woodcock AJ, Julious SA, Kinmonth AL, Campbell MJ. (2001). Qual Life Res. 10: 661–670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Mitchell
    • 1
  • Alison Woodcock
    • 2
  • Clare Bradley
  1. 1.Research Psychologist, Department of Psychology, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations