Search

Introduction Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults (YAs) is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of DRS attendance among YAs in the UK living with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).Research design and methods YAs (18–34 years) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in June 2021 assessing agreement with 30 belief statements informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change describing potential barriers/enablers to DRS.Results In total, 102 responses were received. Most had T1D (65.7%) and were regular attenders for DRS (76.5%). The most salient TDF domains for DRS attendance were ‘Goals’, with 93% agreeing that DRS was a high priority, and ‘Knowledge’, with 98% being aware that screening can detect eye problems early.Overall, 67.4% indicated that they would like greater appointment flexibility (Environmental context/resources) and 31.3% reported difficulties getting time off work/study to attend appointments (Environmental context/resources). This was more commonly reported by occasional non-attenders versus regular attenders (59.1% vs 23.4%, p=0.002). Most YAs were worried about diabetic retinopathy (74.3%), anxious when receiving screening results (63%) (Emotion) and would like more support after getting their results (66%) (Social influences). Responses for T1D and T2D were broadly similar, although those with T2D were more likely have developed strategies to help them to remember their appointments (63.6% vs 37.9%, p=0.019) (Behavioral regulation).Conclusions Attendance for DRS in YAs is influenced by complex interacting behavioral factors. Identifying modifiable determinants of behavior will provide a basis for designing tailored interventions to improve DRS in YAs and prevent avoidable vision loss.

Summary: Background: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding: The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations: For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Background: Keratoconus is a disease of the cornea affecting vision that is usually first diagnosed in the first three decades. The abnormality of corneal shape and thickness tends to progress until the patient reaches approximately 30 years of age. Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking is a procedure that has been demonstrated to be effective in randomised trials in adults and observational studies in young patients. Objectives: The KERALINK trial examined the efficacy and safety of epithelium-off corneal cross-linking, compared with standard care by spectacle or contact lens correction, for stabilisation of progressive keratoconus. Design: In this observer-masked, randomised, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial, 60 participants aged 10–16 years with progressive keratoconus were randomised; 58 participants completed the study. Progression was defined as a 1.5 D increase in corneal power measured by maximum or mean power (K2) in the steepest corneal meridian in the study eye, measured by corneal tomography. Setting: Referral clinics in four UK hospitals. Interventions: Participants were randomised to corneal cross-linking plus standard care or standard care alone, with spectacle or contact lens correction as necessary for vision, and were monitored for 18 months. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was K2 in the study eye as a measure of the steepness of the cornea at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included keratoconus progression, visual acuity, keratoconus apex corneal thickness and quality of life. Results: Of 60 participants, 30 were randomised to the corneal cross-linking and standard-care groups. Of these, 30 patients in the corneal cross-linking group and 28 patients in the standard-care group were analysed. The mean (standard deviation) K2 in the study eye at 18 months post randomisation was 49.7 D (3.8 D) in the corneal cross-linking group and 53.4 D (5.8 D) in the standard-care group. The adjusted mean difference in K2 in the study eye was –3.0 D (95% confidence interval –4.93 D to –1.08 D; p = 0.002), favouring corneal cross-linking. Uncorrected and corrected differences in logMAR vision at 18 months were better in eyes receiving corneal cross-linking: –0.31 (95% confidence interval –0.50 to –0.11; p = 0.002) and –0.30 (95% confidence interval –0.48 to –0.11; p = 0.002). Keratoconus progression in the study eye occurred in two patients (7%) randomised to corneal cross-linking compared with 12 (43%) patients randomised to standard care. The unadjusted odds ratio suggests that, on average, patients in the corneal cross-linking group had 90% (odds ratio 0.1, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.48; p = 0.004) lower odds of experiencing progression than those receiving standard care. Quality-of-life outcomes were similar in both groups. No adverse events were attributable to corneal cross-linking. Limitations: Measurements of K2 in those eyes with the most significant progression were in some cases indicated as suspect by corneal topography device software. Conclusions: Corneal cross-linking arrests progression of keratoconus in the great majority of young patients. These data support a consideration of a change in practice, such that corneal cross-linking could be considered as first-line treatment in progressive disease. If the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by corneal cross-linking is sustained in longer follow-up, there may be particular benefit in avoiding the later requirement for contact lens wear or corneal transplantation. However, keratoconus does not continue to progress in all patients receiving standard care. For future work, the most important questions to be answered are whether or not (1) the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by corneal cross-linking is maintained in the long term and (2) the proportion of those receiving standard care who show significant progression increases with time. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17303768 and EudraCT 2016-001460-11. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial sponsor is University College London. This research was otherwise supported in part by the NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Moorfields Clinical Research Facility, London, United Kingdom.

Background: Cataract surgery is one of the most common operations. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is a technique that automates a number of operative steps. Objectives: To compare FLACS with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). Design: Multicentre, outcome-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Setting: Three collaborating NHS hospitals. Participants: A total of 785 patients with age-related cataract in one or both eyes were randomised between May 2015 and September 2017. Intervention: FLACS (n = 392 participants) or PCS (n = 393 participants). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was uncorrected distance visual acuity in the study eye after 3 months, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR): 0.00 logMAR (or 6/6 if expressed in Snellen) is normal (good visual acuity). Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, refractive outcomes (within 0.5 dioptre and 1.0 dioptre of target), safety and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 12 months, and resource use. All trial follow-ups were performed by optometrists who were masked to the trial intervention. Results: A total of 353 (90%) participants allocated to the FLACS arm and 317 (81%) participants allocated to the PCS arm attended follow-up at 3 months. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar in both treatment arms [0.13 logMAR, standard deviation 0.23 logMAR, for FLACS, vs. 0.14 logMAR, standard deviation 0.27 logMAR, for PCS, with a difference of –0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.03 logMAR; p = 0.63)]. The mean corrected distance visual acuity values were again similar in both treatment arms (–0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.19 logMAR FLACS vs. 0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.21 logMAR PCS; p = 0.34). There were two posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm. There were no significant differences between the treatment arms for any secondary outcome at 3 months. At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.14 logMAR (standard deviation 0.22 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.17 logMAR (standard deviation 0.25 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference between the treatment arms of –0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval –0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.17). The mean corrected distance visual acuity was 0.003 logMAR (standard deviation 0.18 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.03 logMAR (standard deviation 0.23 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference of –0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval –0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.11). There were no significant differences between the arms for any other outcomes, with the exception of the mean binocular corrected distance visual acuity with a difference of –0.02 logMAR (95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.00 logMAR) (p = 0.036), which favoured FLACS. There were no significant differences between the arms for any health, social care or societal costs. For the economic evaluation, the mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient higher for FLACS (95% of iterations between –£14.12 and £341.67) than for PCS. The mean QALY difference (FLACS minus PCS) was 0.001 (95% of iterations between –0.011 and 0.015), which equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost difference divided by QALY difference) of £167,620. Limitations: Although the measurement of outcomes was carried out by optometrists who were masked to the treatment arm, the participants were not masked. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that FLACS is not inferior to PCS in terms of vision after 3 months’ follow-up, and there were no significant differences in patient-reported health and safety outcomes after 12 months’ follow-up. In addition, the statistically significant difference in binocular corrected distance visual acuity was not clinically significant. FLACS is not cost-effective. Future work: To explore the possible differences in vision in patients without ocular co-pathology. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77602616. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Moorfields Eye Charity (grant references GR000233 and GR000449 for the endothelial cell counter and femtosecond laser used).

Background: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) is effective but uptake is suboptimal. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions for DRS attendance; describe the interventions in terms of QI components and behaviour change techniques (BCTs); identify theoretical determinants of attendance; investigate coherence between BCTs identified in interventions and determinants of attendance; and determine the cost-effectiveness of QI components and BCTs for improving DRS. Data sources and review methods: Phase 1 – systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to increase DRS attendance (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trials registers to February 2017) and coding intervention content to classify QI components and BCTs. Phase 2 – review of studies reporting factors influencing attendance, coded to theoretical domains (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and sources of grey literature to March 2016). Phase 3 – mapping BCTs (phase 1) to theoretical domains (phase 2) and an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness of BCTs or QI components. Results: Phase 1 – 7277 studies were screened, of which 66 RCTs were included in the review. Interventions were multifaceted and targeted patients, health-care professionals (HCPs) or health-care systems. Overall, interventions increased DRS attendance by 12% [risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14] compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted and general QI interventions were effective, particularly when baseline attendance levels were low. All commonly used QI components and BCTs were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. Higher effect estimates were observed in subgroup analyses for the BCTs of ‘goal setting (outcome, i.e. consequences)’ (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and ‘feedback on outcomes (consequences) of behaviour’ (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients and of ‘restructuring the social environment’ (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and ‘credible source’ (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting HCPs. Phase 2 – 3457 studies were screened, of which 65 non-randomised studies were included in the review. The following theoretical domains were likely to influence attendance: ‘environmental context and resources’, ‘social influences’, ‘knowledge’, ‘memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘beliefs about consequences’ and ‘emotions’. Phase 3 – mapping identified that interventions included BCTs targeting important barriers to/enablers of DRS attendance. However, BCTs targeting emotional factors around DRS were under-represented. QI components were unlikely to be cost-effective whereas BCTs with a high probability (≥ 0.975) of being cost-effective at a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY included ‘goal-setting (outcome)’, ‘feedback on outcomes of behaviour’, ‘social support’ and ‘information about health consequences’. Cost-effectiveness increased when DRS attendance was lower and with longer screening intervals. Limitations: Quality improvement/BCT coding was dependent on descriptions of intervention content in primary sources; methods for the identification of coherence of BCTs require improvement. Conclusions: Randomised controlled trial evidence indicates that QI interventions incorporating specific BCT components are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared with usual care. Interventions generally used appropriate BCTs that target important barriers to screening attendance, with a high probability of being cost-effective. Research is needed to optimise BCTs or BCT combinations that seek to improve DRS attendance at an acceptable cost. BCTs targeting emotional factors represent a missed opportunity to improve attendance and should be tested in future studies. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016044157 and PROSPERO CRD42016032990. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objectives:The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.Methods:A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results:Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of ?1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, ?technician screening? compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < ?30,000.Conclusions:Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]