4.7 Article

Screening Uptake in a Well-Established Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program The role of geographical access and deprivation

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 31, Issue 11, Pages 2131-2135

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1098

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EastRen grants committee

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To identify criteria that affect uptake of diabetes retinal screening in a community screening program using mobile retinal digital photography units. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Data from the regional diabetes population-based retinal screening program and regional ophthalmology laser database were linked to patient postal code (zip code) data. We used distance from retinal screening event, social deprivation scores, and demographic information to identify risk factors for nonattendance at a diabetes retinal screening event. Patients were subdivided into urban (> 125,000 population), other urban (3,000-125,000 population), or rural (<3,000 population) depending on where they lived. Data were collected from 2004 to 2006 inclusive and included 15,150 patients and 32,621 eye screening records. RESULTS - The mean +/- SD age of patients was 63 +/- 15 years, and 54% were male. Mean travel time to retinal screening event varied from 7.1 to 17.0 min. For 12% of missed appointments, patients were more likely to be younger, to have longer diabetes duration, to have poor A1C and blood pressure control, to be smokers, and to live in deprived areas. Poor attendance was not associated with sex or distance to retinal screening event. CONCLUSIONS - Social deprivation is strongly associated with poor attendance at retinal screening events. Time traveled to screening event was not associated with attendance in this study of a mobile retinal screening service, which visited general practitioner surgeries. This data can help inform population-based diabetes retinal screening programs about improving patient uptake.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available