A cross-over, randomised feasibility study of digitally-printed versus hand-painted artificial eyes in adults: PERSONAL-EYE-S.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Over 60,000 patients in the United Kingdom are estimated to have artificial eyes. Manufacturing and hand-painting of artificial eyes have not changed significantly since 1948. Delays and colour-matching issues may severely impact a patient's rehabilitation pathway. Technology advances mean alternatives are now possible. This cross-over, randomised feasibility trial aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digitally-printed artificial eyes compared to hand-painted. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years who were longstanding artificial eye users requiring a replacement were randomised to receive either a hand-painted or digitally-printed eye first followed by the other type of eye. Participants were asked to approach a close contact (CC) willing to participate alongside them. A subset of participants, their CCs, and staff were interviewed about their opinions on trial procedures, artificial eyes, delivery times and satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants were randomised and 10 CCs consented. Participant retention at final follow-up was 85.7%. Outcome data completion rates ranged from 91-100%. EQ-5D-5L completion ranged from 83-97%. Resource-use completion ranged from 0-94% with total costs at £347 for hand-painted and £404 for digitally-printed eye. There were two adverse events. Twelve participants, five CCs, and five staff were interviewed. There were positive and negative features of both types of eyes. We identified that social and psychological wellbeing is affected, often for many years after eye removal. Participation in the feasibility study was well accepted. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility study outcomes indicate that a full trial is achievable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85921622.

Living with an artificial eye: qualitative insights into patient and family member experiences.

PURPOSE: Artificial eye users (AEUs) can experience a negative impact on psychological and emotional wellbeing, including reduced social functioning, which may be a consequence of living with one eye removed, and/or of having a prosthetic eye. This may have wider consequences for their families. We aimed to explore what it means to live with a prosthetic eye, for both AEUs and their families-and how any quality of life (QoL) issues impact on their day-to-day functioning. METHODS: A subset of AEUs and their family members taking part in a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing hand-painted to digitally printed artificial eyes were invited for semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative results related to trial participation are covered elsewhere. Here, we focus on QoL and day-to-day functioning. RESULTS: Twelve AEUs (eight males) and five spouses (one male) who had worn artificial eyes for 2-65 years took part, and four themes were identified. (1) Impact on day-to-day life: AEUs and their spouses have to adapt to (partial) sight loss, reduced levels of confidence, and social withdrawal. (2) Impact on psychological and emotional wellbeing: distress among AEUs and their spouses can be severe and prolonged, highlight unmet support needs. (3) Challenges with treatment experiences: AEUs experienced negative impact of fragmentation of care and long waiting times. (4) Worries about the future: AEUs mentioned fragility of remaining sight, and concerns around potential need for further treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients and their family members experience negative impact of being an AEU on their everyday lives and quality of life. There is a potential role for psychosocial support services in supporting AEUs and their families even long after eye loss.

Towards evidence-based and inclusive models of peer support for long covid: A hermeneutic systematic review.

Since the first wave of COVID-19 in March 2020 the number of people living with post-COVID syndrome has risen rapidly at global pace, however, questions still remain as to whether there is a hidden cohort of sufferers not accessing mainstream clinics. This group are likely to be constituted by already marginalised people at the sharp end of existing health inequalities and not accessing formal clinics. The challenge of supporting such patients includes the question of how best to organise and facilitate different forms of support. As such, we aim to examine whether peer support is a potential option for hidden or hardly reached populations of long COVID sufferers with a specific focus on the UK, though not exclusively. Through a systematic hermeneutic literature review of peer support in other conditions (57 papers), we evaluate the global potential of peer support for the ongoing needs of people living with long COVID. Through our analysis, we highlight three key peer support perspectives in healthcare reflecting particular theoretical perspectives, goals, and understandings of what is 'good health', we call these: biomedical (disease control/management), relational (intersubjective mutual support) and socio-political (advocacy, campaigning & social context). Additionally, we identify three broad models for delivering peer support: service-led, community-based and social media. Attention to power relations, social and cultural capital, and a co-design approach are key when developing peer support services for disadvantaged and underserved groups. Models from other long-term conditions suggest that peer support for long COVID can and should go beyond biomedical goals and harness the power of relational support and collective advocacy. This may be particularly important when seeking to reduce health inequalities and improve access for a potentially hidden cohort of sufferers.