This report provides an evidence-based review of current strategies to manage dry eye disease (DED). First-line management focuses on methods to replenish, conserve, and stimulate the tear film, with an emphasis on ocular supplements, which remain the cornerstone of DED treatment. Meibomian gland dysfunction, a primary contributor to DED, is typically treated with warm compresses and a wide variety of in-office treatments, including device-driven technologies to warm the eyelids, intense pulsed light therapy, low-level light therapy, and other new and emerging technologies. Lid hygiene treatments include lid wipes, anti-Demodex therapies, blepharoexfoliation, and topical antibiotics. DED caused by certain etiological drivers can benefit from anti-inflammatory therapies, including topical and oral corticosteroids, T-cell immunomodulatory drugs, and a wide variety of pharmacological agents, in addition to biologic tear substitutes such as autologous serum and platelet-rich plasma. Emerging therapies, such as neuromodulation via nasal neurostimulation and novel pharmacological treatments, offer potential future options. Advanced options, including amniotic membrane grafts and complex surgical methods, provide options for severe or refractory cases. Lifestyle modifications, including optimized blinking, dietary supplementation, and environmental adjustments, play a crucial role in long-term management. Patient education and adherence to treatment regimens remain essential for sustained symptom relief. The TFOS DEWS III prescribing algorithm provides an evidence-based framework to offer guidance to clinicians in selecting relevant interventions based on disease etiology that aim to provide targeted management of the relevant DED subtype(s) that an individual is experiencing.

Cognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. A systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies. The search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias. This scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making.