Objective: To synthesise qualitative evidence on clinicians’ views and experiences of defensive practice. Design: Systematic review of qualitative data. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Proquest Dissertations & Theses and PROSPERO were searched from 2000 to October 2023. Eligibility criteria: We included English-language studies of clinicians which reported qualitative data on the impact of litigation or complaints on clinical practice. Data extraction and synthesis: We coded findings data line by line using a grounded theory approach. We assessed quality using Hawker et al ’s tool and synthesised data thematically. Results: 17 studies were included. Participants identify a range of clinical decisions which may be defensively motivated, relating to diagnosis and documentation as well as to treatment. Defensive practice often relates to a diffuse sense of risk rather than the direct threat of litigation and may overlap with other motivations, such as perceived pressure from patients or the desire to avoid harm. Defensive practice is seen to be harmful in many ways, but again, these perceptions may gain force from broader narratives of mistrust and disempowerment, as much as from the risk of litigation. Conclusions: The idea of defensive practice, as enacted, is more complex than some theoretical accounts suggest and may often function to express broader concerns about the work of clinical care. The qualitative evidence calls into question the view of defensive practice as a key mediator linking litigation risk to inappropriate treatment and excess costs.

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes. The most severe form, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, carries a high risk of vision loss, vitreous haemorrhage, macular oedema and other harms. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are used to treat various eye conditions and may be beneficial for people with diabetic retinopathy. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy when compared to panretinal photocoagulation. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of all published randomised controlled trials comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (alone or in combination with panretinal photocoagulation) to panretinal photocoagulation in people with diabetic retinopathy. The database searches were updated in May 2023. Trials where the primary focus was treatment of macular oedema or vitreous haemorrhage were excluded. Results: A total of 14 trials were included: 3 of aflibercept, 5 of bevacizumab and 6 of ranibizumab. Two trials were of patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy; all others were in proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Overall, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor was slightly better than panretinal photocoagulation at preventing vision loss, measured as best corrected visual acuity, at up to 2 years follow-up [mean difference in the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution −0.089 (or 3.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters), 95% confidence interval −0.180 to −0.019]. There was no clear evidence of any difference between the anti-vascular endothelial growth factors, but the potential for bias complicated the comparison. One trial found no benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor over panretinal photocoagulation after 5 years. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor was superior to panretinal photocoagulation at preventing macular oedema (relative risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.49) and vitreous haemorrhage (relative risk 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.99). There was no clear evidence that the effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor varied over time. Conclusions: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections reduce vision loss when compared to panretinal photocoagulation, but the benefit is small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor may have greater benefits for preventing complications such as macular oedema. Observational studies extending follow-up beyond the 1-year duration of most trials are needed to investigate the longer-term effects of repeated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.

Background: Parkinson’s disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson’s disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6–12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement. Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson’s disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON. Methods: We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device. Results: Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Limitations: The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology. Conclusions: Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes, with a high risk of vitreous haemorrhage, tractional retinal detachment and other complications. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary established treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are used to treat various eye conditions and may be beneficial for people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy when compared to panretinal photocoagulation. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (alone or in combination) to panretinal photocoagulation in people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The database searches were updated in May 2023. Trials where the primary focus was treatment of macular oedema or vitreous haemorrhage were excluded. Key outcomes were best corrected visual acuity, diabetic macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. Individual participant data were obtained and analysed for three large, high-quality trials in combination with published data from other trials. Network meta-analyses of best corrected visual acuity and meta-analyses of other outcomes combined individual participant data with published data from other trials; regression analyses against patient covariates used just the individual participant data. Results: Twelve trials were included: one of aflibercept, five of bevacizumab and six of ranibizumab. Individual participant data were available from 1 aflibercept and 2 ranibizumab trials, representing 624 patients (33% of the total). When considered together, anti-vascular endothelial growth factors produced a modest, but not clinically meaningful, benefit over panretinal photocoagulation in best corrected visual acuity, after 1 year of follow-up (mean difference in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution −0.116, 95% credible interval −0.183 to −0.038). There was no clear evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the anti-vascular endothelial growth factors. The benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor appears to decline over time. Analysis of the individual participant data trials suggested that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in people with poorer visual acuity, in those who have vitreous haemorrhage and, possibly, in people with poorer vision generally. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor was superior to panretinal photocoagulation at preventing macular oedema after 1 year (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.83) and possibly at preventing vitreous haemorrhage (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 1.10). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor reduced the incidence of retinal detachment when compared to panretinal photocoagulation (relative risk 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.77). Data on other adverse events were generally too limited to identify any differences between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and panretinal photocoagulation. Conclusions: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has no clinically meaningful benefit over panretinal photocoagulation for preserving visual acuity. However, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy appears to delay or prevent progression to macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. The possibility that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in patients with poorer health and poorer vision merits further clinical investigation. The long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment are unclear, particularly as additional panretinal photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment will be required over time. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.

Several reviews have consolidated the evidence on the impact of living near an urban green space on improving health and education outcomes and reducing mortality. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of specific improvements to these urban green spaces, which would help decision-makers make informed decisions on how to invest in urban green spaces. Therefore, this review synthesizes the impact of more specific changes to, or investments in, urban green spaces on health and education outcomes, synthesizes the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, and critiques the applicability of the evidence for an economic evaluation. We find that interventions targeted towards improving play areas or fitness equipment tended to have mostly positive impacts on physical activity, while interventions on improving walking path, or the overall greenery showed a more mixed impact on physical activity. There were only two studies on the impact of changes to urban green spaces on mental health, with only one finding a positive association of the intervention with depression, and there were no studies measuring the impact of changes to urban green spaces and educational outcomes. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, we find that typically very small improvements are required to make the interventions a cost-effective policy choice; however, we found several limitations with using the existing evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Overall, we found that most of the evidence does suggest that improvements to urban green spaces can lead to improvements in physical activity, but further research is needed on the impact on mental health and educational outcomes. Furthermore, additional evidence with longer time horizons, multi-sectoral benefits, distributional outcomes, and more consistent outcome measures would assist in informing cost-effectiveness and may ultimately lead to improved decision-making around investments for urban green spaces in specific contexts.

Background: Non-proliferative and proliferative diabetic retinopathy are common complications of diabetes and a major cause of sight loss. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs represent a treatment option for people with diabetic retinopathy and are routinely used to treat various other eye conditions. However, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are expensive relative to current care options, and it is unclear whether this additional cost is justified when the immediate risk of vision loss is lower compared to patients with more aggressive ophthalmological conditions. Objective: To systematically review the evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for diabetic retinopathy. Methods: A systematic review of all comparative cost-effectiveness studies evaluating any treatment for diabetic retinopathy was conducted. Bibliographic searches were carried out to identify studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for diabetic retinopathy; the latest searches were conducted on 28 April 2023. Included studies were synthesised narratively and evaluated with reference to UK decision-making. Studies were grouped by population into non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy and proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Results: The review identified five studies in the proliferative diabetic retinopathy population, all of which examined the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments compared to pan-retinal photocoagulation. Results of these studies suggest that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments offer some additional benefits in terms of preserved visual acuity but also incur substantial additional costs relative to pan-retinal photocoagulation. Most authors agreed that the additional costs outweigh the limited benefits, especially in certain patient subgroups without pre-existing oedema. As most of the identified evidence considered a US perspective, it is unclear how these results would translate to a UK setting. Two studies were identified in the non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy population. There was limited evidence to support the early use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. However, one UK study suggested that early treatment of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy with pan-retinal photocoagulation is cost-effective compared to delayed pan-retinal photocoagulation. Conclusions: Overall, there is a dearth of cost-effectiveness evidence considering the UK context. The identified studies raised doubts about the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. No conclusions can be made regarding the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Future research should focus on developing rigorous model-based cost-effectiveness analyses integrating all available evidence. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.