Share this article on:

Utility Values among Myopic Patients in Mainland China

Li, Shunping*; Wang, Guimin; Xu, Yanjiao; Gray, Alastair*; Chen, Gang*

Optometry and Vision Science: July 2014 - Volume 91 - Issue 7 - p 723–729
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000299
Original Articles

Purpose To elicit utility values of adult myopic patients in mainland China.

Methods A valid sample of 442 myopia patients (spherical equivalent at least −0.5 diopters) aged 17 to 44 years who were scheduled to undergo refractive surgery were recruited. Information on time trade-off ([TTO] years of life willing to sacrifice for treatment of myopia) and standard gamble (SG) for blindness (risk of blindness from therapy, willing to sacrifice for treatment of myopia) utility values and sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained.

Results The mean utility values based on TTO and SG were 0.96 ± 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; median, 0.98) and 0.93 ± 0.09 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.94; median, 0.97), respectively. Myopic patients using contact lens had significantly higher TTO utility values than those wearing glasses (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the TTO and SG utility values by age, sex, occupation, educational levels, residence, reasons for refractive surgery, and severity and duration of myopia (p > 0.05).

Conclusions The TTO and SG produce similar mean utility values, but there is poor agreement between results for individuals from the two methods. Utility values associated with myopic patients obtained in this study or reported in the literature seem to be higher than those obtained for other ophthalmic conditions.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.




Centre for Health Management and Policy, Shandong University, Jinan, China (SL); Key Lab for Health Economics and Policy Research, Ministry of Health, Jinan, China (SL); Affiliated Eye Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China (GW, YX); Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (AG); and Flinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia (GC).

Shunping Li Centre for Health Management and Policy Shandong University and Key Lab for Health Economics and Policy Research Ministry of Health 44 Wenhua Xi Rd Jinan, Shandong Province, 250012 China e-mail:

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (

© 2014 American Academy of Optometry