Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Early detection and continuous monitoring are essential to preventing vision loss, yet traditional diagnostic tools remain largely inaccessible in low-resource settings.

This scoping review aimed to map the existing evidence on the use of portable devices for the detection, diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma.

We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across major databases to identify studies that evaluated handheld tonometers, portable fundus cameras and visual field testing devices. Data were extracted on study design, population characteristics, devices used, comparators and reported outcomes.

A total of 216 studies published between 1975 and 2024 were included. Most studies (90.3%) were method agreement studies, primarily focused on intraocular pressure (IOP) devices. Only two studies evaluated all three glaucoma assessment domains (IOP, visual fields and fundus imaging). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, with a smaller number from low- and middle-income countries. Despite variability in performance, many devices demonstrated acceptable agreement with gold standard methods and were assessed in a range of clinical and community settings.

This review highlights the range and characteristics of portable glaucoma devices and their potential for enhancing access to diagnosis and monitoring, particularly in underserved settings. However, the predominance of method agreement studies and the limited integration of multimodal assessments point to gaps in the literature. Future research should focus on comprehensive diagnostic pathways using multiple portable tools and on expanding evaluations in low-resource settings to inform policy and service planning.

The introduction of fentanyl and its analogues in the illicit drug supply has prompted greater emphasis on refining clinical treatment protocols to ensure sustained retention in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Take-home dosing may lessen the treatment burden on clients and thus reduce the risk of treatment discontinuation. The evidence base supporting the use of take-home dosing, including the optimal duration of dispensations, is, however, limited. The objective of this study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative take-home dosing schedules, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2022.

We propose to emulate a target trial with a population-level retrospective study of individuals initiating methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2022 who are 18 years of age or older and not currently incarcerated or pregnant with no history of cancer or palliative care. Our study will draw on nine linked health administrative databases from British Columbia and will evaluate take-home doses of 2–5 days, 6 days or >6 days compared with continuous daily dosing. The primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality on treatment. A causal per-protocol analysis is proposed with longitudinal matching and inverse probability of censoring weighting approaches to adjust for time-fixed and time-varying confounding. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of results.

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated and shared with local advocacy groups and decision-makers, developers of national and international clinical guidelines, presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

We report the collaborative views of a group of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) in the UK who have a genomics research remit or interest. Our group includes genetic counsellors under this diverse category of healthcare workers.

This group came together as part of the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Genomics Research National Specialty Group. After responding to a survey to elicit the views of NMAHPs working in genomics, some of the original 45 respondents, along with others who learnt of the project by word of mouth, have worked together to produce this article.

The paper aims to set out in clear terms the value of NMAHPs to research that supports the patient-centred implementation of genomics in the National Health Service (NHS).

We discuss four potential areas where NMAHPs, in particular, can contribute to the research. These are patient perspectives and epistemic justice, psychosocial impacts, the familial nature of genomics and equity. We argue that this group (NMAHPs) represents a potentially underused resource for the NHS as it seeks to ensure that advances in genomics are translated into patient benefit.

We propose that NMAHPs, with our research expertise, are well placed to shape and deliver a research agenda that explores models of patient-centred care in the genomics era. We call for increased funding for NMAHP research roles and funding opportunities to deliver this fundamental work.