Monitoring ocular hypertension, how much and how often? A cost-effectiveness perspective

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of alternative monitoring services for people with ocular hypertension (OHT), a glaucoma risk factor.

DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model comparing five alternative care pathways: treatment at OHT diagnosis with minimal monitoring; biennial monitoring (primary and secondary care) with treatment if baseline predicted 5-year glaucoma risk is ≥6%; monitoring and treatment aligned to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) glaucoma guidance (conservative and intensive).

SETTING: UK health services perspective.

PARTICIPANTS: Simulated cohort of 10 000 adults with OHT (mean intraocular pressure (IOP) 24.9 mm Hg (SD 2.4).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, glaucoma detected, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS: Treating at diagnosis was the least costly and least effective in avoiding glaucoma and progression. Intensive monitoring following NICE guidance was the most costly and effective. However, considering a wider cost-utility perspective, biennial monitoring was less costly and provided more QALYs than NICE pathways, but was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with treating at diagnosis (£86 717 per additional QALY gained). The findings were robust to risk thresholds for initiating monitoring but were sensitive to treatment threshold, National Health Service costs and treatment adherence.

CONCLUSIONS: For confirmed OHT, glaucoma monitoring more frequently than every 2 years is unlikely to be efficient. Primary treatment and minimal monitoring (assessing treatment responsiveness (IOP)) could be considered; however, further data to refine glaucoma risk prediction models and value patient preferences for treatment are needed. Consideration to innovative and affordable service redesign focused on treatment responsiveness rather than more glaucoma testing is recommended.

The design and implementation of a study to investigate the effectiveness of community vs hospital eye service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease

Introduction
Standard treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF drugs. Following multiple injections, nAMD lesions often become quiescent but there is a high risk of reactivation, and regular review by hospital ophthalmologists is the norm. The present trial examines the feasibility of community optometrists making lesion reactivation decisions.

Methods
The Effectiveness of Community vs Hospital Eye Service (ECHoES) trial is a virtual trial; lesion reactivation decisions were made about vignettes that comprised clinical data, colour fundus photographs, and optical coherence tomograms displayed on a web-based platform. Participants were either hospital ophthalmologists or community optometrists. All participants were provided with webinar training on the disease, its management, and assessment of the retinal imaging outputs. In a balanced design, 96 participants each assessed 42 vignettes; a total of 288 vignettes were assessed seven times by each professional group.The primary outcome is a participant's judgement of lesion reactivation compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes are the frequency of sight threatening errors; judgements about specific lesion components; participant-rated confidence in their decisions about the primary outcome; cost effectiveness of follow-up by optometrists rather than ophthalmologists.

Discussion
This trial addresses an important question for the NHS, namely whether, with appropriate training, community optometrists can make retreatment decisions for patients with nAMD to the same standard as hospital ophthalmologists. The trial employed a novel approach as participation was entirely through a web-based application; the trial required very few resources compared with those that would have been needed for a conventional randomised controlled clinical trial.

The effectiveness of peer mentoring in promoting a positive transition to higher education for first-year undergraduate students: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Background: The global transfer of nursing and midwifery education to higher education institutes has led to student nurses and midwives experiencing challenges previously faced by traditional third-level students, including isolation, loneliness, financial difficulties and academic pressure. These challenges can contribute to increased stress and anxiety levels which may be detrimental to the successful transition to higher education, thus leading to an increase in attrition rates. Peer mentoring as an intervention has been suggested to be effective in supporting students in the transition to third-level education through enhancing a sense of belongingness and improving student satisfaction, engagement and retention rates. This proposed systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness of peer mentoring in enhancing levels of student engagement, sense of belonging and overall satisfaction of first-year undergraduate students following transition into higher education.
Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, ProQuest, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO and CENTRAL databases will be searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies on the implementation of peer assessment strategies in higher education institutes (HEIs) or universities for full-time, first-year adult students (>17 years). Included studies will be limited to the English language. The quality of included studies will be assessed using a validated Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The findings will be presented as a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis as appropriate following sequential explanatory synthesis.
Discussion: The review will provide clear, non-biased evidence-based guidance to all third-level educators on the effectiveness of peer-mentoring programmes for first-year undergraduates. The review is necessary to help establish which type of peer mentoring is most effective. The evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies drawn from the international literature will be utilised to illustrate the best way to implement and evaluate peer mentoring as an effective intervention and will be useful in guiding future research and practice in this area. These findings may be applied internationally across all disciplines.

The effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: An evidence synthesis

DESIGN We will address our research objectives by searching the published and unpublished literature and conducting an evidence synthesis of i) studies of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions provided for children and adolescents who have suffered maltreatment, ii) economic evaluations of these interventions and iii) studies of their acceptability to children, adolescents and their carers. SEARCH STRATEGY: Evidence will be identified via electronic databases for health and allied health literature, social sciences and social welfare, education and other evidence based depositories, and economic databases. We will identify material generated by user-led,voluntary sector enquiry by searching the internet and browsing the websites of relevant UK government departments and charities. Additionally, studies will be identified via the bibliographies of retrieved articles/reviews; targeted author searches; forward citation searching. We will also use our extensive professional networks, and our planned consultations with key stakeholders and our study steering committee. Databases will be searched from inception to time of search. REVIEW STRATEGY Inclusion criteria: 1) Infants, children or adolescents who have experienced maltreatment between the ages of 0 17 years. 2) All psychosocial interventions available for maltreated children and adolescents, by any provider and in any setting, aiming to address the sequelae of any form of maltreatment, including fabricated illness. 3) For synthesis of evidence of effectiveness: all controlled studies in which psychosocial interventions are compared with no-treatment, treatment as usual, waitlist or other-treated controls. For a synthesis of evidence of acceptability we will include any design that asks participants for their views or provides data on non-participation. For decision-analytic modelling we may include uncontrolled studies. Primary and secondary outcomes will be confirmed in consultation with stakeholders. Provisional primary outcomes are psychological distress/mental health (particularly PTSD, depression and anxiety, self-harm); ii) behaviour; iii) social functioning; iv) cognitive / academic attainment, v) quality of life, and vi) costs. After studies that meet the inclusion criteria have been identified (independently by two reviewers), data will be extracted and risk of bias (RoB) assessed (independently by two reviewers) using the Cochrane Collaboration RoB Tool (effectiveness), quality hierarchies of data sources for economic analyses (cost-effectiveness) and the CASP tool for qualitative research (acceptability). Where interventions are similar and appropriate data are available (or can be obtained) evidence synthesis will be performed to pool the results. Where possible, we will explore the extent to which age, maltreatment history (including whether intra- or extra-familial), time since maltreatment, care setting (family / out-of-home care including foster care/residential), care history, and characteristics of intervention (type, setting, provider, duration) moderate the effects of psychosocial interventions. A synthesis of acceptability data will be undertaken, using a narrative approach to synthesis. A decision-analytic model will be constructed to compare the expected cost-effectiveness of the different types of intervention identified in the systematic review. We will also conduct a Value of information analysis if the data permit. EXPECTED OUTPUTS: A synthesis of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children (taking into account age, maltreatment profile and setting) and their acceptability to key stakeholders.