A Methodological Study to Compare Alternative Modes of Administration With Value EQ-5D Using Preference-Elicitation Techniques.

OBJECTIVES: Time trade-off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference-elicitation techniques can be administered using face-to-face interviews (F2F), unassisted online (UO) surveys, or remote-assisted (RA) interviews. The objective of this study was to explore how the mode of administration affects the quality and reliability of preference-elicitation data. METHODS: EQ-5D-5L health states were valued using composite TTO (cTTO) and DCE approaches by the UK general population. Participants were allocated to 1 of 2 study groups. Group A completed both F2F and UO surveys (n = 271), and group B completed both RA and UO surveys (n = 223). The feasibility of survey completion and the reliability and face-validity of data collected were compared across all modes of administration. RESULTS: Fewer participants reported receiving sufficient guidance on the cTTO tasks during the UO survey compared with the 2 assisted modes. Participants across all modes typically reported receiving sufficient guidance on the DCE tasks. cTTO data were less reliable from the UO survey compared with both assisted modes, but there were no differences in DCE data reliability. cTTO data from all modes demonstrated face-validity; however, the UO survey produced higher utilities for moderate and severe health states than both assisted modes. Both F2F and RA modes provided comparably reliable data. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of DCE data is not affected by the mode of administration. Interviewer-assisted modes of administration (F2F or RA) yield more reliable cTTO data than unassisted surveys. Both F2F and RA surveys produced similar-quality data.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCES: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

What is important at the end of life for people with dementia? The views of people with dementia and their carers.

BACKGROUND: Approaching end of life is often a time of vulnerability; this is particularly so for people with dementia and their families where loss of capacity and the ability to communicate, make assessment and shared decision-making difficult. Research has consistently shown that improvements in care and services are required to support better quality and more person-centred care for people with dementia towards and at end of life. However, the views of people with dementia about what factors contribute to high-quality care at this time are a neglected area. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify the aspects of end-of-life care for people with dementia that are most important to them and their carers. DESIGN: Q-methodology, a mixed method combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to study subjectivity, was used to identify the views of people with mild dementia, their family carers and bereaved carers on end-of-life care for people with dementia. Fifty-seven participants were included in the study. RESULTS: Four distinct views were identified: family involvement, living in the present, pragmatic expectations and autonomy and individuality. Some areas of consensus across all views included compassionate care, decisions being made by healthcare professionals and information availability when making decisions. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal several different views on what is important about end-of-life care for people with dementia; therefore, a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to care is unlikely to be most appropriate. Notwithstanding the differing viewpoints could provide a framework for service providers and commissioners for future care. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Time for consensus on "high-risk" - Sentinel lymph node biopsy for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: An international survey of skin cancer specialists and a literature update.

There is an urgent need for evidence-based management of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), particularly "high-risk" tumours. We performed an online survey of skin cancer specialists to assess cSCC research priorities. Respondents were targeted via the international Skin Cancer OUTcomes consortium (SCOUT) and the UK regional Skin Cancer Outcomes North-East (SCONE) research interest group. Thirty-three respondents completed the survey ([46%; 16/33] were non-UK based). 'Defining a role for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in high-risk cSCC' was most commonly ranked either 1st or 2nd research priority by respondents (55%; 18/33), with near-total consensus that SLNB could be useful for the early identification of nodal metastasis in high-risk cSCC (97%; 30/31). On this specific research priority, 24 studies with longitudinal follow-up data were identified. Cumulatively, SLNB for cSCC had positivity and false omission rates of 7.0% and 3.1%, respectively, with false negative rates of 29.0%. Given the lack of consensus on a definition of "high-risk" cSCC, it was unsurprising that only two studies of SLNB for head & neck cSCC utilised comparable selection criteria; reporting the highest positivity rates (8.0%) and lowest false-omission rates (2.4%) and false-negative rates (21.4%) overall. There is multi-disciplinary interest in the role of SLNB for "high-risk" cSCC. It appears to perform best in head and neck cases. A consensus definition of "high-risk" cSCC is urgently required to refine the utility of SLNB and guide risk-directed management.

Eliciting willingness-to-pay to prevent hospital medication administration errors in the UK: a contingent valuation survey.

Medication errors are common in hospitals. These errors can result in adverse drug events (ADEs), which can reduce the health and well-being of patients', and their relatives and caregivers. Interventions have been developed to reduce medication errors, including those that occur at the administration stage. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to elicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) values to prevent hospital medication administration errors. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online, contingent valuation (CV) survey was conducted, using the random card-sort elicitation method, to elicit WTP to prevent medication errors. PARTICIPANTS: A representative sample of the UK public. METHODS: Seven medication error scenarios, varying in the potential for harm and the severity of harm, were valued. Scenarios were developed with input from: clinical experts, focus groups with members of the public and piloting. Mean and median WTP values were calculated, excluding protest responses or those that failed a logic test. A two-part model (logit, generalised linear model) regression analysis was conducted to explore predictive characteristics of WTP. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 1001 individuals. The proportion of respondents willing to pay to prevent a medication error increased as the severity of the ADE increased and was highest for scenarios that described actual harm occurring. Mean WTP across the scenarios ranged from £45 (95% CI £36 to £54) to £278 (95% CI £200 to £355). Several factors influenced both the value and likelihood of WTP, such as: income, known experience of medication errors, sex, field of work, marriage status, education level and employment status. Predictors of WTP were not, however, consistent across scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This CV study highlights how the UK public value preventing medication errors. The findings from this study could be used to carry out a cost-benefit analysis which could inform implementation decisions on the use of technology to reduce medication administration errors in UK hospitals.

Implementing a weight-specific quality-of-life tool for young people in primary health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is thought to be one of the most serious global public health challenges of the 21st century. The primary care setting is important in terms of the diagnosis, education, and management of obesity in children and young people. This study explored the views of primary care clinicians on the implementation of a quality-of-life (QoL) tool to help young people and their families identify the impact of weight on QoL. AIM: To assess the acceptability and feasibility of implementing the Weight-specific Adolescent Instrument for Economic-evaluation (WAItE) QoL tool for young people aged 11-18 years in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study in Northern England, UK METHOD: One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of primary healthcare clinicians working in practices located in areas of varying deprivation in Northern England, UK. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed using framework analysis in NVivo (version 10). RESULTS: Participants (n = 16 GPs; n = 4 practice nurses) found the WAItE tool acceptable for them and their patients, and believed it was feasible for use in routine clinical practice. It was important to primary care clinicians that the tool would provide an overall QoL score that would be easy for GPs and nurses to interpret, to help them identify patients most in need of specialist help. CONCLUSION: This study has developed a platform for further research around QoL in young people who are overweight and obese. A future feasibility study will focus on implementing the tool in a small number of primary healthcare practices.

Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges.

Public health interventions have unique characteristics compared to health technologies, which present additional challenges for economic evaluation (EE). High quality EEs that are able to address the particular methodological challenges are important for public health decision-makers. In England, they are even more pertinent given the transition of public health responsibilities in 2013 from the National Health Service to local government authorities where new agents are shaping policy decisions. Addressing alcohol misuse is a globally prioritised public health issue. This article provides a systematic review of EE and priority-setting studies for interventions to prevent and reduce alcohol misuse published internationally over the past decade (2006-2016). This review appraises the EE and priority-setting evidence to establish whether it is sufficient to meet the informational needs of public health decision-makers. 619 studies were identified via database searches. 7 additional studies were identified via hand searching journals, grey literature and reference lists. 27 met inclusion criteria. Methods identified included cost-utility analysis (18), cost-effectiveness analysis (6), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (1), cost-consequence analysis (CCA) (1) and return-on-investment (1). The review identified a lack of consideration of methodological challenges associated with evaluating public health interventions and limited use of methods such as CBA and CCA which have been recommended as potentially useful for EE in public health. No studies using other specific priority-setting tools were identified.