Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of the review is to assess the effectiveness of intervention components that seek to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Secondary objectives: - To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance; - To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size; - To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved; - To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness

Oral Insulin

Oral insulin is an exciting area of research and development in the field of diabetology. This brief review covers the various approaches used in the development of oral insulin, and highlights some of the recent data related to novel oral insulin preparation

Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: a systematic review of published and grey literature

AIMS: To identify and synthesize studies reporting modifiable barriers/enablers associated with retinopathy screening attendance in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, and to identify those most likely to influence attendance. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the 'grey literature' for quantitative and qualitative studies to February 2017. Data (i.e. participant quotations, interpretive summaries, survey results) reporting barriers/enablers were extracted and deductively coded into domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework; with domains representing categories of theoretical barriers/enablers proposed to mediate behaviour change. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted within domains to describe the role each domain plays in facilitating or hindering screening attendance. Domains that were more frequently coded and for which more themes were generated were judged more likely to influence attendance. RESULTS: Sixty-nine primary studies were included. We identified six theoretical domains ['environmental context and resources' (75% of included studies), 'social influences' (51%), 'knowledge' (51%), 'memory, attention, decision processes' (50%), 'beliefs about consequences' (38%) and 'emotions' (33%)] as the key mediators of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance. Examples of barriers populating these domains included inaccurate diabetic registers and confusion between routine eye care and retinopathy screening. Recommendations by healthcare professionals and community-level media coverage acted as enablers. CONCLUSIONS: Across a variety of contexts, we found common barriers to and enablers of retinopathy screening that could be targeted in interventions aiming to increase screening attendance

Prevalence and Causes of Vision Loss in High-Income Countries and in Eastern and Central Europe in 2015: Magnitude, Temporal Trends, and Projections

Background: Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020. Methods: Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia were estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Results: Age-standardized prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10-0.46) to 0.15% (0.06-0.26), and from 1.74% (0.76-2.94) to 1.27% (0.55-2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70,000, 630,000 and 610,000, respectively, in Australasia to 980,000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI. Conclusions: While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem are needed

Diabetic retinopathy in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Cohort: a pilot study: Retinopathy in youth with diabetes

The aim of this pilot study was to generate an initial estimate of the prevalence and correlates of diabetic retinopathy in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of youth with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Effectiveness of interventions to promote screening for diabetic retinopathy.

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed to increase retinal screening among people with diabetes.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted of multiple electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2005. Studies were included if interventions were used to promote screening for diabetic retinopathy in any language and with any study design.ResultsForty-eight studies (12 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], four nonrandomized studies, and 32 pre-post studies) with a total of 162,157 participants, examined a wide range of interventions, which focused on one or more of the following: (1) patients or populations, (2) providers or practices, and (3) healthcare system infrastructure and processes. Four of five RCTs focusing on patients demonstrated that interventions increased screening significantly, with relative risk ranging from 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01-1.08) to 2.01 (95% CI=1.48-2.73). Five RCTs with a focus on the system all demonstrated significant increases in screening with relative risk ranging from 1.12 (95% CI=1.03-1.22) to 5.56 (95% CI=2.19-14.10). Thirty-six non-RCTs, which included interventions with single or multiple foci, also generally demonstrated positive effects.ConclusionsIncreasing patient awareness of diabetic retinopathy, improving provider and practice performance, and improving healthcare system infrastructure and processes, can significantly increase screening for diabetic retinopathy. Further research should explore strategies for increasing the rate of retinal screening among diverse or disadvantaged populations and the economic efficiency of effective interventions in large community populations

Dilated eye examination screening guideline compliance among patients with diabetes without a diabetic retinopathy diagnosis: the role of geographic access

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, dilated eye examination guideline compliance among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), but without diabetic retinopathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Utilizing the computerized billing records database, we identified patients with International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnoses of DM, but without any ocular diagnoses. The available medical records of patients in 2007–2008 were reviewed for demographic and ocular information, including visits through 2010 (n=200). Patients were considered guideline compliant if they returned at least every 15 months for screening. Participant street addresses were assigned latitude and longitude coordinates to assess their neighborhood socioeconomic status (using the 2000 US census data), distance to the screening facility, and public transportation access. Patients not compliant, based on the medical record review, were contacted by phone or mail and asked to complete a follow-up survey to determine if screening took place at other locations. RESULTS: The overall screening compliance rate was 31%. Patient sociodemographic characteristics, insurance status, and neighborhood socioeconomic measures were not significantly associated with compliance. However, in separate multivariable logistic regression models, those living eight or more miles from the screening facility were significantly less likely to be compliant relative to those living within eight miles (OR=0.36 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.86)), while public transit access quality was positively associated with screening compliance (1.34 (1.07 to 1.68)). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of patients returned for diabetic retinopathy screening at least every 15 months, with transportation challenges associated with noncompliance. Our results suggest that reducing transportation barriers or utilizing community-based screening strategies may improve compliance

Diabetic retinopathy screening in patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care: Incentives and barriers to screening attendance

AbstractAimAlthough diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is a basic component of diabetes care, uptake of screening programs is less than optimal. Because attendance rates and reasons for non-attendance in an unselected diabetes population are unknown, this study examines incentives and barriers to attend DR-screening.MethodFour focus groups provided patient-related themes concerning individual decision-making regarding attendance at DR-screening. A questionnaire measuring attendance rates and the influence of several factors was sent to 3236 diabetes patients (>18 years) in 20 Dutch general practices, of which 2363 (73%) responded.ResultsIn the past 3 years, 81% of the patients had attended DR-screening. Patients not attending had lower levels of education, a more recent diagnosis of diabetes, and less frequently used insulin. There was no difference in DM types 1 and 2 patients regarding attendance. Patients attending more often visited health-care providers. Patients reported ‘knowledge of detrimental effects of DR on visual acuity’, ‘sense of duty’ and ‘fear of impaired vision’ as main incentives. The main barrier was the absence of a recommendation by the health-care provider.ConclusionKnowledge about detrimental effects of DR on visual acuity and recommendation by health-care providers are important, possibly modifiable, factors in the attendance to DR screening