U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Stewart C, Wu H, Alagappan U, et al. Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2024 Aug. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 28.44.)

Cover of Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study

Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study.

Show details

References

1.
Parihar JK. Glaucoma: the ‘black hole’ of irreversible blindness. Med J Armed Forces India 2016;72(1):3–4. [PMC free article: PMC4723712] [PubMed: 26900214]
2.
Quartilho A, Simkiss P, Zekite A, Xing W, Wormald R, Bunce C. Leading causes of certifiable visual loss in England and Wales during the year ending 31 March 2013. Eye (Lond) 2016;30(4):602–7. [PMC free article: PMC5108547] [PubMed: 26821759]
3.
King A, Azuara-Blanco A, Tuulonen A. Glaucoma. BMJ 2013;346:f3518. [PubMed: 23757737]
4.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Glaucoma: Diagnosis and Management [NG81]; 2017. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng81 (accessed 29 July 2022).
5.
Barkana Y, Dorairaj S. Re: Tham et al.: Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Ophthalmology 2014;121:2081-90). Ophthalmol 2015;122(7):e40–1. [PubMed: 26111782]
6.
Cesareo M, Ciuffoletti E, Ricci F, Missiroli F, Giuliano MA, Mancino R, Nucci C. Visual disability and quality of life in glaucoma patients. Prog Brain Res 2015;221:359–74. [PubMed: 26518087]
7.
Buchan J. The Way Forward: Age-related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Retinopathy. London: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists; 2017. URL: www​.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content​/uploads/2021​/12/RCOphth-The-Way-Forward-AMD-300117​.pdf (accessed 25 October 2023).
8.
McMonnies CW. Glaucoma history and risk factors. J Optom 2017;10(2):71–8. [PMC free article: PMC5383456] [PubMed: 27025415]
9.
McMonnies CW. The importance of and potential for continuous monitoring of intraocular pressure. Clin Exp Optom 2017;100(3):203–7. [PubMed: 27813193]
10.
Kotecha A, Longstaff S, Azuara-Blanco A, Kirwan JF, Morgan JE, Spencer AF, Foster PJ. Developing standards for the development of glaucoma virtual clinics using a modified Delphi approach. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;102(4):531–4. [PubMed: 28821554]
11.
Lusthaus J, Goldberg I. Current management of glaucoma. Med J Aust 2019;210(4):180–7. [PubMed: 30767238]
12.
Winyard S, McLaughlan B. Cost Oversight? The Cost of Eye Disease and Sight Loss in the UK Today and in the Future. London: Royal National Institute for the Blind; 2009.
13.
Bashshur RL, Shannon GW, Smith BR, Alverson DC, Antoniotti N, Barsan WG, et al. The empirical foundations of telemedicine interventions for chronic disease management. Telemed J E Health 2014;20(9):769–800. [PMC free article: PMC4148063] [PubMed: 24968105]
14.
Farmer A, Gibson OJ, Tarassenko L, Neil A. A systematic review of telemedicine interventions to support blood glucose self-monitoring in diabetes. Diabet Med 2005;22(10):1372–8. [PubMed: 16176199]
15.
Jayaram NM, Khariton Y, Krumholz HM, Chaudhry SI, Mattera J, Tang F, et al. Impact of telemonitoring on health status. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2017;10(12):e004148. [PMC free article: PMC5776725] [PubMed: 29237746]
16.
Long JA, Jahnle EC, Richardson DM, Loewenstein G, Volpp KG. Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012;156(6):416–24. [PMC free article: PMC3475415] [PubMed: 22431674]
17.
Omboni S, Ferrari R. The role of telemedicine in hypertension management: focus on blood pressure telemonitoring. Curr Hypertens Rep 2015;17(4):535. [PubMed: 25790799]
18.
Purcell R, McInnes S, Halcomb EJ. Telemonitoring can assist in managing cardiovascular disease in primary care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Fam Pract 2014;15:43. [PMC free article: PMC3984731] [PubMed: 24606887]
19.
Walker RC, Tong A, Howard K, Palmer SC. Patient expectations and experiences of remote monitoring for chronic diseases: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Med Inform 2019;124:78–85. [PubMed: 30784430]
20.
NHS England. The NHS Long Term Plan. London: NHS England; 2019. URL: www​.longtermplan.nhs​.uk/wp-content/uploads​/2019/08/nhs-long-term-plan-version-1​.2.pdf (accessed 25 October 2023).
21.
Topol EJ. A decade of digital medicine innovation. Sci Transl Med 2019;11(498): eaaw7610. [PubMed: 31243153]
22.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The SENSIMED Triggerfish Contact Lens Sensor for Continuous 24-hour Recording of Ocular Dimensional Changes in People with or at Risk of Developing Glaucoma [MIB14]; 2014. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/advice/mib14 (accessed 28 July 2022).
23.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. ICare Rebound Tonometer to Measure Intraocular Pressure [MIB57]; 2014. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/advice/mib57 (accessed 18 July 2022).
24.
Barbour-Hastie CC, Tatham AJ. Teaching home tonometry using a remote video link. Eye (Lond) 2022;37:501–5. [PMC free article: PMC8853323] [PubMed: 35177790]
25.
Chen E, Quérat L, Åkerstedt C. Self-tonometry as a complement in the investigation of glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol 2016;94(8):788–92. [PubMed: 27227556]
26.
Kim KN, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Yang MK, Kim DM. Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting. Acta Ophthalmol 2013;91(5):e392–6. [PubMed: 23521889]
27.
Noguchi A, Nakakura S, Fujio Y, Fukuma Y, Mori E, Tabuchi H, Kiuchi Y. A pilot evaluation assessing the ease of use and accuracy of the new self/home-tonometer IcareHOME in healthy young subjects. J Glaucoma 2016;25(10):835–41. [PubMed: 27275654]
28.
Pronin S, Brown L, Megaw R, Tatham AJ. Measurement of intraocular pressure by patients with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017;135(10):1030–6. [PMC free article: PMC5710491] [PubMed: 28859192]
29.
Mudie LI, LaBarre S, Varadaraj V, Karakus S, Onnela J, Munoz B, Friedman DS. The iCare HOME (TA022) study: performance of an intraocular pressure measuring device for self-tonometry by glaucoma patients. Ophthalmol 2016;123(8):1675–84. [PubMed: 27289178]
30.
Takagi D, Sawada A, Yamamoto T. Evaluation of a new rebound self-tonometer, iCare HOME: comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Glaucoma 2017;26(7):613–8. [PubMed: 28369004]
31.
Che Hamzah J, Daka Q, Azuara-Blanco A. Home monitoring for glaucoma. Eye (Lond) 2020;34(1):155–60. [PMC free article: PMC7002638] [PubMed: 31772381]
32.
Folgar FA, de Moraes CGV, Prata TS, Teng CC, Tello C, Ritch R, et al Glaucoma Surgery Decreases the Rates of Localized and Global Visual Field Progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:258–264.e2. 10.1016/J.AJO.2009.09.010 [PubMed: 20103054] [CrossRef]
33.
Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A, He M, Crowston JG, Gupta V, et al. Six-month longitudinal comparison of a portable tablet perimeter with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;190:9–16. [PubMed: 29550190]
34.
Ong EL, Zheng Y, Aung T, Tan L, Cheng CY, Wong TY, How A. Performance of the Moorfields motion displacement test for identifying eyes with glaucoma. Ophthalmol 2014;121(1):88–92. [PubMed: 24139154]
35.
Loughman J, Gonzalez Alvarez C, Verdon-Roe GM, Anderson R, Manuel RA, Naidoo K. Impact of computer experience on the viability and repeatability of the Moorfields motion displacement test in a developing and underserved African setting. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013;4:304.
36.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Icare Rebound Tonometer to Measure Intraocular Pressure [MIB57]: Evidence Review; 2016. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/advice​/mib57/chapter/Evidence-review (accessed 18 July 2022).
37.
Cvenkel B, Velkovska MA, Jordanova VD. Self-measurement with iCare HOME tonometer, patients’ feasibility and acceptability. Eur J Ophthalmol 2020;30(2):258–63. [PubMed: 30632407]
38.
Jones L, Callaghan T, Campbell P, Jones PR, Taylor DJ, Asfaw DS, et al. Acceptability of a home-based visual field test (Eyecatcher) for glaucoma home monitoring: a qualitative study of patients’ views and experiences. BMJ Open 2021;11(4):e043130. [PMC free article: PMC8030466] [PubMed: 33820785]
39.
Hu GY, Prasad J, Chen DK, Alcantara-Castillo JC, Patel VN, Al-Aswad LA. Home monitoring of glaucoma using a home tonometer and a novel virtual reality visual field device: acceptability and feasibility. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2022;6:121–8. [PubMed: 35577312]
40.
Mercieca K, Drury B, Bhargava A, Fenerty C. Trabeculectomy bleb needling and antimetabolite administration practices in the UK: a glaucoma specialist national survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;102(9):1244–7. [PubMed: 29212821]
41.
Khan SA, Whittaker K, Razzaq MA, Arain UR. National survey of intraoperative mitomycin C use during trabeculectomy surgery in the UK. Int Ophthalmol 2021;41(4):1309–16. [PubMed: 33409733]
42.
Momentive Inc. SurveyMonkey. San Mateo, California. URL: www​.surveymonkey.co.uk/ (accessed 17 August 2022).
43.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15(9):1277–88. [PubMed: 16204405]
44.
Elite Cafemedia. Encyclopedia.com; 2019. URL: www​.encyclopedia.com/ (accessed 9 March 2022).
45.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Dictionary; 2022. URL: https://dictionary​.cambridge.org/ (accessed 9 March 2022).
46.
QSR International. NVivo 12. Burlington, MA: QSR International; 2020.
47.
Browne RH. On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med 1995;14(17):1933–40. [PubMed: 8532986]
48.
Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005;4(4):287–91.
49.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016;26(13):1753–60. [PubMed: 26613970]
50.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the Theoretical Domains Framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012;7:37. [PMC free article: PMC3483008] [PubMed: 22530986]
51.
Bugge C, Williams B, Hagen S, Logan J, Glazener C, Pringle S, Sinclair L. A process for Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT): development following a feasibility study of a complex intervention for pelvic organ prolapse. Trials 2013;14:353. [PMC free article: PMC3819659] [PubMed: 24160371]
52.
Microsoft Corporation. MS Teams. Redmond, WA, USA: Microsoft Corporation; 2022.
53.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3(2):77–101.
54.
Gomes M, Murray E, Raftery J. Economic evaluation of digital health interventions: methodological Issues and recommendations for practice. PharmacoEcon 2022;40(4):367–78. [PMC free article: PMC8821841] [PubMed: 35132606]
55.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE Guidelines: the Manual [ PMG20 ]; 2014. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/process​/pmg20/chapter/introduction (accessed 22 December 2022). [PubMed: 26677490]
56.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647. [PubMed: 25555855]
57.
Burr JM, Botello-Pinzon P, Takwoingi Y, Hernández R, Vazquez-Montes M, Elders A, et al. Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(29):1iii–271iv. [PMC free article: PMC4781499] [PubMed: 22687263]
58.
Crabb DP, Russell RA, Malik R, Anand N, Baker H, Boodhna T, et al. Frequency of visual field testing when monitoring patients newly diagnosed with glaucoma: mixed methods and modelling. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014;2(27). 10.3310/hsdr02270 [PubMed: 25642569] [CrossRef]
59.
van Gestel A, Webers CA, Severens JL, Beckers HJ, Jansonius NM, Hendrikse F, Schouten JS. The long-term outcomes of four alternative treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 2012;90(1):20–31. [PubMed: 22289192]
60.
Holtzer-Goor KM, van Sprundel E, Lemij HG, Plochg T, Klazinga NS, Koopmanschap MA. Cost-effectiveness of monitoring glaucoma patients in shared care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:312. [PMC free article: PMC3006381] [PubMed: 21083880]
61.
Hernández R, Burr JM, Vale L, Azuara-Blanco A, Cook JA, Banister K, et al.; Surveillance of Ocular Hypertension Study group. Monitoring ocular hypertension, how much and how often? A cost-effectiveness perspective. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100(9):1263–8. [PubMed: 26659710]
62.
Boodhna T, Crabb DP. More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in England. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16(1):611. [PMC free article: PMC5075403] [PubMed: 27770792]
63.
Raad voor Volksgezondheid en Zorg Zinnige en duurzame zorg (Sensible and sustainable care). Zoetermeer, NL: RVZ; 2006.
64.
Shemilt I, James T, Marcello M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evid Policy 2010;6(1):51–9.
65.
Polisena J, Coyle D, Coyle K, McGill S. Home telehealth for chronic disease management: a systematic review and an analysis of economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(3):339–49. [PubMed: 19619353]
66.
Morris T, Aspinal F, Ledger J, Li K, Gomes M. The impact of digital health interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes on health and social care utilisation and costs: a systematic review. PharmacoEcon Open 2022;7(2):163–73. [PMC free article: PMC10043074] [PubMed: 36495462]
67.
Ben-Assuli O. Measuring the cost-effectiveness of using telehealth for diabetes management: a narrative review of methods and findings. Int J Med Inform 2022;163:104764. [PubMed: 35439671]
68.
Nguyen NH, Martinez I, Atreja A, Sitapati AM, Sandborn WJ, Ohno-Machado L, Singh S. Digital health technologies for remote monitoring and management of inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):78–97. [PMC free article: PMC8987011] [PubMed: 34751673]
69.
De Guzman KR, Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Gray LC, Caffery LJ. Economic evaluations of remote patient monitoring for chronic disease: a systematic review. Value Health 2022;25(6):897–913. [PubMed: 35667780]
70.
Teo VH, Teo SH, Burkill SM, Wang Y, Chew EA, Ng DW, et al. Effects of technology-enabled blood pressure monitoring in primary care: a quasi-experimental trial. J Telemed Telecare 2024;30(1):121–30. 10.1177/1357633X211031780 [PMC free article: PMC10748448] [PubMed: 34328375] [CrossRef]
71.
Stoddart A, Hanley J, Wild S, Pagliari C, Paterson M, Lewis S, et al. Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2013;3(5):e002681. [PMC free article: PMC3657667] [PubMed: 23793650]
72.
Ionov MV, Zhukova OV, Yudina YS, Avdonina NG, Emelyanov IV, Kurapeev DI, et al. Value-based approach to blood pressure telemonitoring and remote counseling in hypertensive patients. Blood Press 2021;30(1):20–30. [PubMed: 32954832]
73.
Monahan M, Jowett S, Nickless A, Franssen M, Grant S, Greenfield S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring and self-monitoring of blood pressure for antihypertensive titration in primary care (TASMINH4). Hypertension 2019;73(6):1231–9. [PMC free article: PMC6510405] [PubMed: 31067190]
74.
Padwal RS, So H, Wood PW, McAlister FA, Siddiqui M, Norris CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring and case management in the secondary prevention of cerebrovascular disease in Canada. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2019;21(2):159–68. [PMC free article: PMC8030339] [PubMed: 30570200]
75.
Madsen LB, Christiansen T, Kirkegaard P, Pedersen EB. Economic evaluation of home blood pressure telemonitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Blood Press 2011;20(2):117–25. [PubMed: 21105759]
76.
Kaambwa B, Bryan S, Jowett S, Mant J, Bray EP, Hobbs FD, et al. Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2014;21(12):1517–30. [PubMed: 23990660]
77.
Dehmer SP, Maciosek MV, Trower NK, Asche SE, Bergdall AR, Nyboer RA, et al. Economic evaluation of the home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist case management to control hypertension (Hyperlink) trial. J Am Coll Clin Pharm 2018;1(1):21–30. [PMC free article: PMC6181443] [PubMed: 30320302]
78.
Benedetto V, Filipe L, Harris C, Spencer J, Hickson C, Clegg A. Analytical frameworks and outcome measures in economic evaluations of digital health interventions: a methodological systematic review. Med Decis Making 2023;43(1):125–38. [PMC free article: PMC9742632] [PubMed: 36259354]
79.
Somers C, Chimonas S, McIntosh E, Kaltenboeck A, Briggs A, Bach P. Using nominal group technique to identify key attributes of oncology treatments for a discrete choice experiment. MDM Policy Pract 2019;4(1):2381468319837925. [PMC free article: PMC6429659] [PubMed: 30915400]
80.
Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence 2013;7:133–9. [PMC free article: PMC3572758] [PubMed: 23412964]
81.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
82.
Ismail R, Azuara-Blanco A, Ramsay CR. Consensus on outcome measures for glaucoma effectiveness trials: results from a Delphi and nominal group technique approaches. J Glaucoma 2016;25(6):539–46. [PubMed: 26091178]
83.
van Gestel A, Severens JL, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, Jansonius NM, Schouten JS. Modeling complex treatment strategies: construction and validation of a discrete event simulation model for glaucoma. Value Health 2010;13(4):358–67. [PubMed: 20659272]
84.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies; 2018. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/about​/what-we-do/our-programmes​/evidence-standards-framework-for-digital-health-technologies (accessed 15 September 2022).
85.
Storgaard L, Tran TL, Freiberg JC, Hauser AS, Kolko M. Glaucoma clinical research: trends in treatment strategies and drug development. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:733080. [PMC free article: PMC8473801] [PubMed: 34589504]
86.
Prea SM, Kong GYX, Guymer RH, Vingrys AJ. Uptake, persistence, and performance of weekly home monitoring of visual field in a large cohort of patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;223:286–95. [PubMed: 33221287]
87.
Jones PR, Campbell P, Callaghan T, Jones L, Asfaw DS, Edgar DF, Crabb DP. Glaucoma home monitoring using a tablet-based visual field test (Eyecatcher): an assessment of accuracy and adherence over 6 months. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;223:42–52. [PMC free article: PMC7462567] [PubMed: 32882222]
88.
Prea SM, Vingrys AJ, Kong GYX. Test reliability and compliance to a twelve-month visual field telemedicine study in glaucoma patients. J Clin Med 2022;11(15):4317. [PMC free article: PMC9332101] [PubMed: 35893408]
89.
Rosenfeld E, Rabina G, Barequet D, Mimouni M, Fischer N, Kurtz S. Role of home monitoring with iCare ONE rebound tonometer in glaucoma patients management. Int J Ophthalmol 2021;14(3):405–8. [PMC free article: PMC7930534] [PubMed: 33747817]
90.
Levin AM, McGlumphy EJ, Chaya CJ, Wirostko BM, Johnson TV. The utility of home tonometry for peri-interventional decision-making in glaucoma surgery: case series. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2022;28:101689. [PMC free article: PMC9562449] [PubMed: 36247209]
91.
Daka Q, Mustafa R, Neziri B, Virgili G, Azuara-Blanco A. Home-based perimetry for glaucoma: where are we now? J Glaucoma 2022;31(6):361–74. [PubMed: 35394454]
92.
Ballouz D, Cho J, Woodward MA, Elam AR, Musch DC, Zhang J, et al. Facilitators and barriers to glaucoma screening identified by key stakeholders in underserved communities: a community-engaged research approach. J Glaucoma 2021;30(5):402–9. [PMC free article: PMC8084870] [PubMed: 33273279]
93.
Ward E, Wickens RA, O’Connell A, Culliford LA, Rogers CA, Gidman EA, et al. Monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) reactivation at home: the MONARCH study. Eye (Lond) 2021;35(2):592–600. [PMC free article: PMC8027627] [PubMed: 32367004]
94.
O’Connor SR, Treanor C, Ward E, Wickens RA, O’Connell A, Culliford LA, et al.; Monarch Study Group. Patient acceptability of home monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration reactivation: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(20):13714. [PMC free article: PMC9603709] [PubMed: 36294292]
95.
Taylor ML, Thomas EE, Vitangcol K, Marx W, Campbell KL, Caffery LJ, et al. Digital health experiences reported in chronic disease management: an umbrella review of qualitative studies. J Telemed Telecare 2022;28(10):705–17. [PubMed: 36346938]
96.
Klaic M, Kapp S, Hudson P, Chapman W, Denehy L, Story D, Francis JJ. Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework. Implement Sci 2022;17(1):10. [PMC free article: PMC8793098] [PubMed: 35086538]
97.
Kang JH, Wang M, Frueh L, Rosner B, Wiggs JL, Elze T, Pasquale LR. Cohort study of race/ethnicity and incident primary open-angle glaucoma characterized by autonomously determined visual field loss patterns. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2022;11(7):21. [PMC free article: PMC9339699] [PubMed: 35877093]
98.
Honeyman M, Maguire d, Evans H, Davies A. Digital Technology and Health Inequalities: A Scoping Review. Cardiff: Public Health Wales NHS Trust; 2020. URL: https://phw​.nhs.wales​/publications/publications1​/digital-technology-and-health-inequalities-a-scoping-review/ (accessed 25 October 2023).
99.
Dawson S, Banister K, Biggs K, Cotton S, Devane D, Gardner H, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice. Trials 2022;23(1):672. [PMC free article: PMC9383663] [PubMed: 35978338]
100.
Treweek S, Banister K, Bower P, Cotton S, Devane D, Gardner HR, et al. Developing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework-a tool to help trialists design trials that better reflect the communities they serve. Trials 2021;22(1):337. [PMC free article: PMC8108025] [PubMed: 33971916]
101.
Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al.; INCLUDE writing group. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials 2020;21(1):694. [PMC free article: PMC7395975] [PubMed: 32738919]
102.
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021;374:n2061. [PMC free article: PMC8482308] [PubMed: 34593508]
103.
Terris-Prestholt F, Neke N, Grund JM, Plotkin M, Kuringe E, Osaki H, et al.; VMMC study team. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions. Trials 2019;20(1):157. [PMC free article: PMC6399844] [PubMed: 30832718]
104.
Gc VS, Iglesias CP, Erdem S, Hassan L, Peek N, Manca A. Using discrete-choice experiments to elicit preferences for digital wearable health technology for self-management of chronic kidney disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2022;38(1):e77. [PubMed: 36286261]
105.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017;18(Suppl 3):280. [PMC free article: PMC5499094] [PubMed: 28681707]
106.
Harris Y, Gilman B, Ward MM, Ladinsky J, Crowley J, Warren C, Caplan C. Building the evidence base for tele-emergency care: efforts to identify a standardized set of outcome measures. Telemed J E Health 2017;23(7):561–6. [PubMed: 28079461]
107.
108.
National Institute for Health and Care Research. Payment Guidance for Researchers and Professionals; 2022. URL: www​.nihr.ac.uk/documents​/payment-guidance-for-researchers-and-professionals​/27392 (accessed 10 February 2023).
Copyright © 2024 Stewart et al.

This work was produced by Stewart et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.

Bookshelf ID: NBK606829
Contents

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (2.4M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...