4.6 Article

Use of Eye Care Services among Diabetic Patients in Urban and Rural China

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 117, 期 9, 页码 1755-1762

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.01.019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the use of eye care and its predictors among diabetic patients in China. Design: Cross-sectional, clinic-based study. Participants: Diabetic patients 18 years of age or older were recruited consecutively from an urban tertiary and community hospitals and from a rural clinic in Guangdong, China. Methods: Information obtained by questionnaire and chart review included: demographic and socioeconomic status, knowledge about diabetic retinopathy (DR), and ocular and medical history. Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported or chart history of an eye examination ever or within the preceding 12 months. Results: The participation rate among 889 eligible subjects was 92.7%. Among 824 participants (mean age, 62.6 +/- 12.9 years; 58.8% female), 550 (66.7%) had not been examined in the last year as recommended by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and 356 (43.2%) had never been examined. For the rural hospital, these figures were 81.1% and 68.7%, respectively. In regression analyses, factors associated with having an eye examination in the last year were: attendance at urban hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 3.46 [P<0.001] and 1.76 [P = 0.021] for the tertiary and community hospitals, respectively, compared with the rural clinic), higher DR knowledge score (OR, 1.24; P = 0.001), greater concern about vision loss (OR, 1.22; P = 0.007), and recommendation of regular eye examinations by the provider (OR, 2.36; P = 0.011). Predictors of ever having an eye examination were similar. Monthly income and health insurance status were not predictive of being examined. Conclusions: These results suggest that the low proportion of diabetic receiving recommended annual eye examinations in China may be improved through patient and physician education.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据