Health economic evaluations of preventative care for perinatal anxiety and associated disorders: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: Perinatal mental health problems affect one in five women and cost the UK £8.1 billion for every year of births, with 72% of this cost due to the long-term impact on the child. We conducted a rapid review of health economic evaluations of preventative care for perinatal anxiety and associated disorders. DESIGN: This study adopted a rapid review approach, using principles of the standard systematic review process to generate quality evidence. This methodology features a systematic database search, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram, screening of evidence, data extraction, critical appraisal and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO and MEDLINE. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies that evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of preventative care for perinatal anxiety and associated disorders carried out within the National Health Service and similar healthcare systems. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A minimum of two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen, critically appraise and synthesise included studies. RESULTS: The results indicate a lack of economic evaluation specifically for perinatal anxiety, with most studies focusing on postnatal depression (PND). Interventions to prevent postnatal mental health problems are cost-effective. Modelling studies have also been conducted, which suggest that treating PND with counselling would be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The costs of not intervening in maternal mental health outweigh the costs of preventative interventions. Preventative measures such as screening and counselling for maternal mental health are shown to be cost-effective interventions to improve outcomes for women and children. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022347859.

Development of the MobQoL patient reported outcome measure for mobility-related quality of life.

PURPOSE: To examine how mobility and mobility impairment affect quality of life; to develop a descriptive system (i.e., questions and answers) for a novel mobility-related quality of life outcome measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited predominantly from NHS posture and mobility services. Qualitative framework analysis was used to analyse data. In the first stage of analysis the key dimensions of mobility-related quality of life were defined, and in the second stage a novel descriptive system was developed from the identified dimensions. RESULTS: Forty-six interviews were conducted with 37 participants (aged 20-94 years). Participants had a wide range of conditions and disabilities which impaired their mobility, including cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Eleven dimensions of mobility-related quality of life were identified: accessibility, safety, relationships, social inclusion, participation, personal care, pain and discomfort, independence, energy, self-esteem, and mental-wellbeing. A new outcome measure, known as MobQoL, was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Mobility and mobility impairment can have significant impacts on quality of life. MobQoL is the first outcome measure designed specifically to measure the impact of mobility on quality of life, and therefore has utility in research and practice to measure patient outcomes related to rehabilitation.Implications for RehabilitationMobility impairment affects many different aspects of health and quality of life.The impact of mobility impairment on quality of life is related to processes of physical, emotional, and behavioural adaptation.MobQoL is the first patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically to measure the quality of life impacts of mobility impairment and assistive mobility technology use.MobQoL has potential to be used by rehabilitation professionals to measure and monitor mobility-related quality of life as part of routine clinical practice.

Powered mobility interventions for very young children with mobility limitations to aid participation and positive development: the EMPoWER evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: One-fifth of all disabled children have mobility limitations. Early provision of powered mobility for very young children (aged < 5 years) is hypothesised to trigger positive developmental changes. However, the optimum age at which to introduce powered mobility is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to synthesise existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of powered mobility for very young children, compared with the more common practice of powered mobility provision from the age of 5 years. REVIEW METHODS: The study was planned as a mixed-methods evidence synthesis and economic modelling study. First, evidence relating to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility and anticipated outcomes of paediatric powered mobility interventions was reviewed. A convergent mixed-methods evidence synthesis was undertaken using framework synthesis, and a separate qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using thematic synthesis. The two syntheses were subsequently compared and contrasted to develop a logic model for evaluating the outcomes of powered mobility interventions for children. Because there were insufficient published data, it was not possible to develop a robust economic model. Instead, a budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of increased powered mobility provision for very young children, using cost data from publicly available sources. DATA SOURCES: A range of bibliographic databases [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index (SCI; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH; Clarivate Analytics), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and OpenGrey] was systematically searched and the included studies were quality appraised. Searches were carried out in June 2018 and updated in October 2019. The date ranges searched covered from 1946 to September 2019. RESULTS: In total, 89 studies were included in the review. Only two randomised controlled trials were identified. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No conclusive evidence was found about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of powered mobility in children aged either < 5 or ≥ 5 years. However, strong support was found that powered mobility interventions have a positive impact on children's movement and mobility, and moderate support was found for the impact on children's participation, play and social interactions and on the safety outcome of accidents and pain. 'Fit' between the child, the equipment and the environment was found to be important, as were the outcomes related to a child's independence, freedom and self-expression. The evidence supported two distinct conceptualisations of the primary powered mobility outcome, movement and mobility: the former is 'movement for movement's sake' and the latter destination-focused mobility. Powered mobility should be focused on 'movement for movement's sake' in the first instance. From the budget impact analysis, it was estimated that, annually, the NHS spends £1.89M on the provision of powered mobility for very young children, which is < 2% of total wheelchair service expenditure. LIMITATIONS: The original research question could not be answered because there was a lack of appropriately powered published research. CONCLUSIONS: Early powered mobility is likely to have multiple benefits for very young children, despite the lack of robust evidence to demonstrate this. Age is not the key factor; instead, the focus should be on providing developmentally appropriate interventions and focusing on 'movement for movement's sake'. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on developing, implementing, evaluating and comparing different approaches to early powered mobility. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018096449. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aim of this study was to find out the benefits and costs of providing very young children, aged < 5 years, with powered mobility devices. Examples of powered mobility devices are electrically powered wheelchairs and modified ride-on toys. We looked at many research papers about children and powered mobility. We found many benefits of powered mobility. We then combined all of the information to see if using powered mobility before the age of 5 years had any specific benefits for children. The evidence tells us that powered mobility has a positive effect on children's movement, and it can boost children's social interactions with other people, and their independence. Children using powered mobility were able to go to their friends by themselves, move around a play space as they wanted and take part in physical activities and games. We found that the fit between the child, the powered mobility device and the child's everyday environment was important. When the fit was not good, children experienced a lot of problems. Some children and families felt that powered mobility did not suit their needs, leading to children using a manual wheelchair instead and thereby missing out on education, social opportunities and play. Barriers to powered mobility were found in the physical environment (e.g. inaccessible buildings) and the social environment (e.g. adults supervising children too closely) and often affected children's independence. We found that the advantages and disadvantages of powered mobility were similar in younger and older children, even though the activities they took part in were different. We also found that each year the NHS spends < 2% of its wheelchair service budget on powered mobility for very young children. In conclusion, powered mobility can benefit very young children, but it requires a good fit with the child's environment.

Development of the Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children (WATCh): A patient-centred outcome measure for young wheelchair users.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a patient-centred outcome measure (PCOM) for use with children and young people accessing National Health Service (NHS) wheelchair and posture services. Identifying and addressing outcomes of most importance to young wheelchair users (≤ 18 years) will help services maximise the benefits achievable within available resources. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used, involving questionnaire surveys and qualitative interviews, and building on previous work identifying how young wheelchair users define health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Framework analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts. Survey questionnaires seeking views on the importance of a range of outcomes were completed by 21 young wheelchair users or their parents. Subsequent face-to-face interviews with 11 parents or dyads of parents and young wheelchair users explored these responses and identified novel outcomes. Interviewees also scored and recorded satisfaction levels for their key outcomes. RESULTS: All outcomes proposed in the survey were rated as 'extremely important' by at least one respondent, as were additional outcomes uncovered in the qualitative data. In consultation with the service providers and service users, the Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children (WATCh) was developed to allow service users and providers to identify, score and monitor individual users' most important outcomes. The final WATCh tool comprises 16 outcome options, of which service users select five to be monitored. The tool will be used to measure key outcomes identified by service users before and after wheelchair provision.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous injections allow for self-administration, but consideration of patients' perspectives on treatment choice is important to ensure adherence. Previous systematic reviews have been limited in their scope for assessing preferences in relation to other routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine patients' perspectives on subcutaneously administered self-injectable medications when compared with other routes or methods of administration for the same medicines. METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched for publications since 2000 using terms pertaining to methods of administration, choice behavior, and adverse effects. Eligibility for inclusion was determined through reference to specific criteria by two independent reviewers. Results were described narratively. RESULTS: Of the 1726 papers screened, 85 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were focused mainly on methods of insulin administration for diabetes but also included treatments for pediatric growth disorders, multiple sclerosis, HIV, and migraine. Pen devices and autoinjectors were favored over administration with needle and syringe, particularly with respect to ergonomics, convenience, and portability. Inhalation appeared to be more acceptable than subcutaneous injection (in the case of insulin), but how subcutaneous infusion, intramuscular injection, and needle-free injection devices compare with subcutaneous injections in terms of patient preference is less certain. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified a number of studies showing the importance of the methods and routes of drug delivery on patient choice. However, studies were prone to bias, and further robust evidence based on methodologically sound approaches is required to demonstrate how patient choice might translate to improved adherence.