Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.
Sec. Ophthalmology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1446715

Exploring Patient Preferences for Intraocular Lenses Selection in Age-Related Cataract: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study

Provisionally accepted
Qiaolin Zhu Qiaolin Zhu 1*Qianqian Sun Qianqian Sun 1*Yujia Huo Yujia Huo 1*Xiaoling Yang Xiaoling Yang 1*Hehe Huang Hehe Huang 1*Shanshan Qian Shanshan Qian 1*Wenjing Lin Wenjing Lin 2*Wentao Yan Wentao Yan 1*
  • 1 Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
  • 2 Wenzhou Central Hospital, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Introduction: This study investigates the preferences of cataract patients in East China regarding intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted using a questionnaire that included various IOLs attributes. Participants made choices based on different combinations of these attributes, and the data were analyzed using multinomial logit models (MNL) and latent class analysis (LCA) to identify preference heterogeneity. Results: A total of 200 cataract patients (mean age 66.2 years, 58.5% female) participated in the study. The most influential factors in IOLs selection were presbyopia correction, with a preference for multifocal IOLs (trifocal and bifocal), spherical aberration correction, and astigmatism correction. High cost and a higher probability of adverse visual phenomena negatively affected preferences. The inclusion of blue-blocking functionality and the surgeon's recommendation had minimal influence on patient choice. LCA revealed three distinct preference groups: Class 1 ("Aberration Correction Seekers") preferred aspheric IOLs, Class 2 ("Presbyopia and Blue-Blocking Enthusiasts") favored multifocal IOLs, and Class 3 ("Astigmatism and Cost-Sensitive Patients") preferred toric IOLs. Multinomial logistic regression analysis further showed that male patients and those with unilateral cataracts were more likely to choose toric IOLs. Conclusions: This study highlights significant heterogeneity in cataract patient preferences for IOLs attributes. Cost was the most critical factor, followed by presbyopia and aberration correction. Men favored toric IOLs and exhibited sensitivity to cost, while highly educated individuals preferred multifocal IOLs less. These findings underscore the need for personalized IOLs recommendations and signal opportunities for innovation and customization in the IOLs industry.

    Keywords: Discrete choice experiment, Cataract, Health Economics, patient preferences, Intraocular lenses

    Received: 10 Jun 2024; Accepted: 14 Jan 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Zhu, Sun, Huo, Yang, Huang, Qian, Lin and Yan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Qiaolin Zhu, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China
    Qianqian Sun, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China
    Yujia Huo, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China
    Xiaoling Yang, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China
    Hehe Huang, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China
    Shanshan Qian, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China
    Wenjing Lin, Wenzhou Central Hospital, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang Province, China
    Wentao Yan, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, Zhejiang Province, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.