Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme: An audit of patients with diabetes in two large primary care centres

Marsha Tracey; Emmy Racine; Fiona Riordan; Sheena M. McHugh; Patricia M. Kearney

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.1

Home Browse Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme:...

ALL Metrics

Views

103

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Note

Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme: An audit of patients with diabetes in two large primary care centres

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Marsha Tracey¹, Emmy Racine², Fiona Riordan ², Sheena M. McHugh², Patricia M. Kearney²

Marsha Tracey¹, Emmy Racine², [...] Fiona Riordan ², Sheena M. McHugh², Patricia M. Kearney²

PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2019

Author details Author details

¹ AXIS Healthcare Consulting Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
² School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

Marsha Tracey
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Emmy Racine
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Fiona Riordan
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sheena M. McHugh
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Patricia M. Kearney
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults. Regular diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) can reduce the risk of sight loss. In 2013, the new national screening programme (RetinaScreen) was introduced in Ireland. Maximising DRS uptake (consent to participate in the programme and attendance once invited) is a priority, therefore it is important to identify characteristics which determine DRS uptake among those with diabetes in Ireland. We report uptake in an Irish primary care population during the initial phase of implementation of RetinaScreen and investigate factors which predict consenting to participate in the programme.
Methods: In two primary care practices, data were extracted from records of people with diabetes (type 1 and type 2) aged ≥18 years who were eligible to participate in RetinaScreen between November 2013 and August 2015. Records were checked for a RetinaScreen letter. RetinaScreen were contacted to establish the status of those without a letter on file. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to examine associations between socio-demographic variables and consenting. Adjusted incident rate ratios (IRR) with 95% CI were generated as a measure of association.
Results: Of 722 people with diabetes, one fifth (n=141) were not registered with RetinaScreen. Of 582 who were registered, 63% (n=365) had participated in screening. Most people who consented subsequently attended (n=365/382, 96%). People who had attended another retinopathy screening service were less likely to consent (IRR 0.65 [95%CI 0.5-0.8]; p<0.001). Other predictors were not significantly associated with consent.
Conclusions: Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented. Research is needed to understand barriers and enablers of DRS uptake in the Irish context. Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake (consent and attendance) should be a priority.

Keywords

diabetes, retinopathy, screening, microvascular complication, primary care

Corresponding author: Fiona Riordan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Health Research Board Ireland [RL/2013/7].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2019 Tracey M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Tracey M, Racine E, Riordan F et al. Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme: An audit of patients with diabetes in two large primary care centres [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2019, 2:17 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.1) First published: 26 Jul 2019, 2:17 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.1) Latest published: 13 Dec 2019, 2:17 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.3)

Introduction

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. DR affects 8.2% of the Irish population over 50 years with type 2 diabetes¹ and is the leading causes of blindness among adults of working age². Regular diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) leads to the earlier detection of retinopathy and treatment that can prevent or delay the development of diabetes-related blindness. Although DRS is found to be effective, few countries have established a population-based DRS programme. In 2013, the new national programme (Diabetic RetinaScreen) was introduced in Ireland offering free, regular retinopathy screening to people with diabetes.

Ensuring a high uptake of retinopathy screening is challenging³. Prior to the introduction of a national programme, there was variation in attendance at regional screening services in Ireland, with attendance rates ranging from 49–80%^4–6. Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷. Non-attendance at screening has been identified as a risk factor for poor visual outcomes among those with diabetes⁸. Factors associated with non-attendance include, younger age^9,10, type 1 diabetes⁹, poor glycaemic control^9,11 and lack of awareness of the benefits of DRS or the risk of DR among patients^6,12. A recommendation from a healthcare provider^6,12 and fear of impaired vision¹² have been shown to motivate attendance. Little is known about characteristics which determine the uptake of retinal screening among those with diabetes in the Irish context^4,6. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with participation in a new national retinopathy screening service using data from primary care.

Methods

National Screening Programme

RetinaScreen is a government-funded programme providing free, annual retinal screening, and, if necessary, treatment, to anyone aged 12 years or older with diagnosed diabetes. The programme was commissioned in 2011 and rolled out in 2013 and 2014¹³. The current study was conducted during the initial phase of the programme (2013–2015). In Ireland, there is no national register of people with diabetes. The programme register was populated in 2012 using information from existing national health schemes, specifically pharmacy claims data. GPs or by other healthcare professionals involved in diabetes care can add also add patients to the register by directly contacting RetinaScreen. All those on the register are invited by letter to participate in the programme¹³, after which they provide consent for the programme to hold and use their contact details and receive an appointment. Once consented they receive an appointment, after which they need to attend. Figure 1 illustrates this process of registration, consenting to and attending the programme. To receive an appointment, people first need to consent to the programme. Once consented they receive an appointment, after which they need to attend.

Figure 1. Flow diagram illustrating process of consenting and attending to the programme.

HCP; Health Care Professional.

Population

Members of the target population were people with diabetes aged 18 years and over who were eligible to participate in RetinaScreen during the uptake period of interest, that is, diagnosed with diabetes four months before the end of the uptake period of interest (Practice A: between July 2014 and August 2015; Practice B between November 2013 and December 2014).

Research setting

Data collection was carried out across two large primary healthcare centres (Practice A and Practice B) located in two different Community Health Organisations in Ireland (Figure 2). Practice A had seven GPs with five practice nurses and approximately 22,000 patients. Practice B had eight GPs with four practice nurses and approximately 20,000 patients.

Figure 2. Timeline of the national programme, RetinaScreen, and data collection at study sites.

Data collection

The two primary care centres used the same computerised IT system, therefore data collection methods described were carried out across both sites. All adults aged ≥18 years with diabetes were identified via the practice database, using the International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition (ICPC-2) codes for diabetes insulin dependent (T89) and diabetes non-insulin dependent (T90). Duplicates were removed and data were extracted from each individual medical record. Next, the following inclusion criteria were applied: age 18 years and older, community-dwelling, diagnosed with diabetes at least four months before the end of the uptake period of interest (Practice A: before May 2015; Practice B: before September 2014). Exclusion criteria were, a diagnosis of prediabetes or gestational diabetes or diabetes insipidus, no perception of light in both eyes (blindness) as documented in medical records, nursing home residence, visiting patient to the practice.

Data were extracted from eligible individual’s medical record. Each medical record was checked for a RetinaScreen letter (results letter or did not attend letter). RetinaScreen was contacted to establish the status of those who did not have a letter on file. Individuals were then categorised into four groups:

1. Not registered (details were not listed on the RetinaScreen database),
2. Non-consenters (details were listed in the RetinaScreen database but did not respond to the RetinaScreen initial letter asking for individual’s consent to hold and use their contact details),
3. Non-attenders (details were listed on the RetinaScreen database; they responded to the RetinaScreen invitation letter but did not attend screening appointment)
4. Attenders (details were listed on the RetinaScreen database, responded to the RetinaScreen invitation letter and attended appointment).

In each practice, the beginning of the uptake period was defined as the earliest date of the first screening results letter available on file (Figure 2). The end of the uptake period was defined as the last day of data collection; hence the uptake period for each practice was 14 months in duration.

Individual-level characteristics were also extracted from the patient’s medical records and included: date of birth, gender, healthcare cover (medical card/private insurance), diabetes type (type 1/type 2), date of GP diabetes diagnosis (≤2012 vs. >2012) and a previous doctor diagnosis of hypertension. A previous diagnosis of myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular accident and transient ischaemic attack were defined as macrovascular complications. A previous diagnosis of DR, diabetic neuropathy or diabetic nephropathy were defined as microvascular complications. Each medical record was checked for a results letter from existing retinopathy screening services; attendance at existing retinopathy screening services (for example a private ophthalmologist or previous regional initiative) was categorised into two groups: no evidence of attending existing retinopathy screening services (‘none’) and evidence of attending existing retinopathy screening services (‘previous attendance’). Age (years) was calculated by subtracting year of birth from year of uptake period and was categorised into three age groups (18–39 years; 40–65 years; 65 years and over). Duration of diabetes diagnosis was calculated by subtracting year of GP diabetes diagnosis from year of uptake period and was categorised into three groups (0–4 years; 5–9 years; 10 years and over).

Data analysis

Analysis was carried out in Stata version 13 for windows (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise characteristics of patients and were stratified according to outcome group. Uptake was calculated as the number of people who participated in the programme (consented and attended) and reported as a proportion of the total who were registered. Group specific differences in categorical variables were analysed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The mean and standard deviation were reported if continuous data conformed to normality and the student t-test was conducted to compare mean differences. If data were skewed, the median with associated lower and upper quartile values was reported and the Kruskal Wallis test was utilised. Associations between predictor variables and programme outcomes were examined with multivariable Poisson regression. Adjusted incident rate ratios (IRR) with 95% CI were generated as a measure of association. Predictor variables were selected based on whether they had been reported in the literature as significant predictors of uptake to diabetic retinopathy screening.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee for the Cork Teaching Hospitals (ECM 4 (o)). Patient consent for the use of their medical records was waived by the ethics committee as no patient records or identifiable data were removed from primary care centres. MT acted as a ‘Data processor’ on behalf of the general practitioner and a ‘Data Protection and Confidentiality Agreement’ was signed by the general practitioner and MT.

Results

Uptake of Diabetic RetinaScreen

A total of 722 people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were identified during data collection (Figure 3). At the time of data collection, one fifth of patients (n = 141) were not registered with RetinaScreen. A total of 582 people were registered and had been invited to participate in the screening programme. Of these, 66% consented to take part (n = 382), the majority of whom attended screening. Overall, 63% of those who were registered (n = 365), participated; i.e., consented and attended (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Outcome status of individuals identified during data collection.

*Registered, details listed on the screening programme database; invitation letter to avail of screening sent. **Not registered, details not listed on the screening programme database. ^║Not consenting, did not response to invitation letters; ^¶Attending, attended screening appointment. ^§Not attending, responded to invitation letter but did not attend screening appointment.

Most of the 217 who had not participated in the programme had not consented for the programme to hold and use their details (n = 200, 92%). While the uptake of RetinaScreen was 63% among those who were registered for the programme (n = 365/582), only half (n = 365/722) of the eligible population of people with diabetes had participated in the new national programme at the time of the study.

Characteristics of the target population

The characteristics of the 582 people who were registered with RetinaScreen are shown in Table 1. The mean age of patients was 63.0 years (SD 13.8), 61% were male and 91% had type 2 diabetes. Approximately half of the sample had evidence of attending existing retinopathy screening services in their medical record (52%).

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample who were registered, stratified by outcome status (n = 581).

	Registered (n = 582)	Consenting (n = 381)		Not consenting (n = 200)
Variable	Overall (n = 582)	Attending (n = 365)	Not attending (n = 17)
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Demographics Age years (mean, SD)	63.0 (13.8)	63.8 (12.8)	57.9 (17.6)	62.1 (15.1)
Gender [Male]	355 (61)	227 (62)	6 (35)	122 (61)
Medical card	406 (70)	252 (69)	12 (71)	142 (71)
Diabetes
Type 2	531 (91)	341 (93)	14 (82)	176 (88)
Year of diagnosis ≤2012	533 (92)	337 (92)	14 (82)	182 (91)
Years since diagnosis (median, IQR)	8 (5-13)	8 (5 -13)	6 (4-10)	9 (5 -15)
Complications Microvascular Macrovascular	147 (25) 75 (13)	86 (24) 47 (13)	5 (29) 2 (12)	56 (28) 26 (13)
Hypertension	294 (50)	189 (52)	7 (41)	91 (46)
Screening history* None Previous attendance	280 (48) 301 (52)	214 (59) 151 (41)	5 (29) 12 (71)	61 (31) 138 (69)

*Evidence of retinopathy screening at existing screening provider in medical record

Predictors of consenting to Diabetic RetinaScreen

Most people who consented to participate in the programme subsequently attended (n = 365/382, 95.6%). Therefore, consent to be invited to participate was the outcome of interest for the regression analysis. Table 2 presents the results from the Poisson regression analyses. Multivariable analysis indicated that people who had previously attended an existing retinopathy screening service (IRR = 0.65 [95% CI 0.5-0.8]; p<0.001) were less likely to consent.

Table 2. Contextual predictors of consenting to RetinaScreen.

Variables	Crude IRR (95% CI) (n=582)	p	Adjusted¹ IRR (95% CI) (n=582)	p
Demographics Age 18–39 years 40–64 years 65+ years *Gender* Male Female *Healthcare cover* Medical card Private	1 (ref) 1.7 (0.9-3) 1.6 (0.8-2.8) 1 (ref) 1.03 (0.82-1.3) 1 (ref) 0.9 (0.8-1.2)	0.10 0.13 0.68 0.77	1 (ref) 1.4 (0.7-2.7) 1.3 (0.6-2.6) 1 (ref) 0.9 (0.8-1.2) 1 (ref) 1.04 (0.8-1.3)	0.34 0.46 0.69 0.72
Medical factors *Diabetes type* Type 1 Type 2 *Years since diagnosis* 0–4 years 5–9 years 10 + years	1 (ref) 1.4 (0.9-2.1) 1 (ref) 0.9 (0.8-1.3) 0.9 (0.7-1.2)	0.14 0.89 0.80	1 (ref) 1.3 (0.8-1.3) 1 (ref) 0.9 (0.7-1.3) 1.03 (0.8-1.4)	0.28 0.89 0.81
*Attendance to existing retinopathy screening* None Existing	1 (ref) 0.65 (0.5-0.8)	<0.001	1 (ref) 0.65 (0.5-0.8)	<0.001

¹variables entered into model: age, gender, healthcare cover, diabetes type, years since diagnosis, screening history

Discussion

This study outlines uptake of DRS among people with diabetes in Ireland during the initial implementation of a new national screening programme. Over the 14-month period the overall uptake (consenting and attending) among people who were registered was 63%. This is similar to the most recent figures (61%) available from RetinaScreen; i.e., people sent a consent letter who attended¹⁴, and higher than previously reported in some regional community-based screening initiatives^15–17. Consent was the outcome of interest as this is the first point of engagement with the programme before a patient can attend screening. Encouragingly, once consented, most people attended their screening appointment.

National figures indicate that, in the first round of screening (March 2013 to December 2014), of the 134,513 people who were invited to participate (sent a consent letter), 57.1% consented to RetinaScreen¹³. This is lower than the proportion of people reported in the current study (66%). While previous studies have found factors such as age^9,10, type of diabetes and duration⁹ to be associated with DRS uptake, our analysis only found that previous attendance to an existing retinopathy screening service significantly predicted consenting to take part in the programme. This suggests that people who already are aware of, and familiar with, DRS are more inclined to attend the new national programme. A lack of awareness of DR and the risk has previously been reported as a barrier to attendance^6,12,18,19. An Irish study conducted in 2015 which surveyed patients attending general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics about screening behaviours, reported 91% had never previously heard of RetinaScreen²⁰. However, since then the programme has introduced further advertising and may be more familiar to patients.

We found one fifth of patients were not registered with RetinaScreen at the time of the study. The introduction of the Cycle of Care, in 2015, may improve RetinaScreen registration rates for those with a medical card as it provides financial remuneration to General Practitioners (GPs) for providing structured care for people with type 2 diabetes who have a medical card. The structured review visit includes monitoring of key processes of care including screening attendance. In this study, 34% of those not registered would not be eligible for the Cycle of Care. Systems should be put in place to support professionals to register and encourage attendance among all patients. With routine management of type 2 diabetes taking place in the community, primary care professionals are well positioned to promote DRS attendance. A recommendation to attend screening from a primary care professional has been found to motivate attendance^18,19,21. In a survey of GPs in Ireland, 56% identified the time required to register patients as a barrier²⁰. Since this study, RetinaScreen have introduced a number of measures to facilitate registration and consent, including an online referral system (2015), and a single step registration and consent form which can be returned by patients directly to RetinaScreen (2019). It is important to recognise that service innovations evolve as they become more embedded in everyday practice. As such, with new implementation strategies Retinascreen may have addressed initial challenges and reasons for non-participation may change over time.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, as mentioned, the study was undertaken during the initial phase of an on-going implementation process. However, estimates from the current study are in line with more recent figures from the programme. Patients may be attending private providers, and we cannot assess this using the current data. Quantitative data were extracted using a standardised extraction template and relevant quality checks were applied to the data. We acknowledge that the completeness and accuracy of our study is dependent on the consistency and timely application of codes in each practice. However, both practices have systems in place to ensure that databases are maintained to a high standard. The type of predictors examined by this study are limited to those available in patient records. Other factors found to be important in previous studies, for example, socio economic status (SES)^22–25, self-management, and history of glycaemic control¹⁸, could not be included.

Conclusion

We found over one third of people eligible to participate in the free national retinal screening programme, Diabetic RetinaScreen, had not done so. The results suggest DRS attendance could be supported by raising awareness of screening and supporting professionals to register and encourage their patients to attend. Type 2 diabetes, which accounts for about 90% of all cases of diabetes²⁶, is largely managed in primary care, making this a suitable setting in which to introduce strategies to support DRS uptake. Further research is needed to better understand barriers and enablers of DRS uptake in the Irish context, and to determine strategies would effectively target these factors. In Ireland, the population eligible for screening is increasing each year²⁷, therefore implementing effective strategies to maximise uptake of DRS must be a priority from the outset.

Data availability

Permission was not sought from participating practices or the Clinical Research Ethics Committee to share the data outside of the research team. De-identified data from the current study are available for further (collaborative) research purposes on reasonable request. Available datasets include the audit data. To access the data, please contact the corresponding author (fiona.riordan@ucc.ie) or the Principal Investigator (patricia.kearney@ucc.ie). Researchers must provide a written proposal on how the data will be used in research before access is granted.

Ethics

The research was approved in Ireland by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals, UCC.

Grant information

Health Research Board Ireland [RL/2013/7].

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the two primary care practices in which data collection was conducted.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Tracey ML, McHugh SM, Buckley CM, et al.: The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes and related complications in a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50 and over in the Republic of Ireland. Diabet Med. 2016; 33(4): 441–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Kelliher C, Kenny D, O'Brien C: Trends in blind registration in the adult population of the Republic of Ireland 1996-2003. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90(3): 367–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Scanlon P: Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: Progress or Lack of Progress. Visual Dysfunction in Diabetes. Springer; 2012; 17–29. Publisher Full Text
4. McHugh S, Buckley C, Murphy K, et al.: Quality-assured screening for diabetic retinopathy delivered in primary care in Ireland: an observational study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(607): e134–e40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Marsden P, Brennan C, McHugh S, et al.: Audit Report of the HSE Midland Diabetes Structured Care Programme. 2010. Reference Source
6. Dervan E, Lillis D, Flynn L, et al.: Factors that influence the patient uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. Ir J Med Sci. 2008; 177(4): 303–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Thomas RL, Dunstan FD, Luzio SD, et al.: Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy within a national diabetic retinopathy screening service. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015; 99(1): 64–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Forster AS, Forbes A, Dodhia H, et al.: Changes in detection of retinopathy in type 2 diabetes in the first 4 years of a population-based diabetic eye screening program: retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(9): 2663–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Millett C, Dodhia H: Diabetes retinopathy screening: audit of equity in participation and selected outcomes in South East London. J Med Screen. 2006; 13(3): 152–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Saadine JB, Fong DS, Yao J: Factors associated with follow-up eye examinations among persons with diabetes. Retina. 2008; 28(2): 195–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Leese GP, Boyle P, Feng Z, et al.: Screening uptake in a well-established diabetic retinopathy screening program: the role of geographical access and deprivation. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31(11): 2131–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. van Eijk KN, Blom JW, Gussekloo J, et al.: Diabetic retinopathy screening in patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care: Incentives and barriers to screening attendance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012; 96(1): 10–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Diabetic RetinaScreen: Programme Report 2013-2015. Reference Source
14. Kennedy F, Clarke M: Prevention & Early Intervention Series, Focussed Policy Assessment No.3. 2018. Reference Source
15. McHugh S, Buckley C, Murphy K, et al.: Quality-assured screening for diabetic retinopathy delivered in primary care in Ireland: an observational study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(607): e134–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Riordan FMS, Marsden P, Kearney P, et al.: Audit Report of the HSE Midland Diabetes Structured Care Programme. Dublin Mid-Leinster; 2017. Reference Source
17. Dervan E, Lillis D, Flynn L, et al.: Factors that influence the patient uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. Ir J Med Sci. 2008; 177(4): 303–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. van Eijk KN, Blom JW, Gussekloo J, et al.: Diabetic retinopathy screening in patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care: Incentives and barriers to screening attendance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012; 96(1): 10–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Lawrenson JG: Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: a systematic review of published and grey literature. Diabet Med. 2018; 35(10): 1308–1319.PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Bennett GH, Tuthill A: Investigating the Barriers to the Uptake of Diabetic RetinaScreen. Ir Med J. 2017; 110(9): 628. PubMed Abstract
21. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Shiyanbola OO, et al.: Factors influencing patient adherence with diabetic eye screening in rural communities: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0206742. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Scanlon PH: The English national screening programme for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. J Med Screen. 2008; 15(1): 1–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Gulliford MC, Dodhia H, Chamley M, et al.: Socio-economic and ethnic inequalities in diabetes retinal screening. Diabet Med. 2010; 27(3): 282–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Hwang J, Rudnisky C, Bowen S, et al.: Socioeconomic factors associated with visual impairment and ophthalmic care utilization in patients with type II diabetes. Can J Ophthalmol. 2015; 50(2): 119–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Kliner M, Fell G, Gibbons C, et al.: Diabetic retinopathy equity profile in a multi-ethnic, deprived population in Northern England. Eye (Lond). 2012; 26(5): 671–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. International Diabetes Federation (IDF): IDF Diabetes Atlas. 7th Edition. International Diabetes Federation (IDF); 2015. Reference Source
27. Tracey ML, Gilmartin M, O’Neill K, et al.: Epidemiology of diabetes and complications among adults in the Republic of Ireland 1998-2015: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16(1): 132. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2019

Author details Author details

¹ AXIS Healthcare Consulting Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
² School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

Marsha Tracey
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Emmy Racine
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Fiona Riordan
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sheena M. McHugh
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Patricia M. Kearney
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Health Research Board Ireland [RL/2013/7].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 13 Dec 2019, 2:17

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 27 Nov 2019, 2:17

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.2

version 1

Published: 26 Jul 2019, 2:17

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.1

© 2019 Tracey M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1341

downloads

103

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Tracey M, Racine E, Riordan F et al. Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme: An audit of patients with diabetes in two large primary care centres [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2019, 2:17 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12926.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2019

Views

Reviewer Report 14 Oct 2019

Irene M. Stratton, Gloucestershire Retinal Research Group, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14005.r26814

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults". Diabetic retinopathy affects about 30% of people in England with diabetes and similar in Scotland so it's unlikely to be 8.2% in Ireland. That's any DR (one microaneurysm or more). If the authors mean sight threatening DR then this should be stated.

"Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷". This is in Wales - is this range between GP surgeries or areas of Wales?

Are the appointments fixed time appointments? Are the patients able to change the time or place of the screening? Are the appointments weekdays and working day only?

Maybe those who were recorded as already having attended screening thought that the service they had been using was as good (maybe more convenient) than the DRS?

Barriers to consent would seem to me to be a bigger problem than attendance.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Diabetic retinopathy, screening, ophthalmology, statistics.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 27 Nov 2019

Fiona Riordan, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

27 Nov 2019

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and ... Continue reading Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults". Diabetic retinopathy affects about 30% of people in England with diabetes and similar in Scotland so it's unlikely to be 8.2% in Ireland. That's any DR (one microaneurysm or more). If the authors mean sight threatening DR then this should be stated.

8.2% is the prevalence based on self-report among a cohort aged 50 and over with type 2 only who participated in The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (TILDA). Were the whole population to be taken into account including <50 years and people with type 1 this figure would be closer to 30%. In TILDA retinopathy was confirmed using the question ‘Has a doctor ever told you that you have any of the following conditions related to your diabetes?’. One of the listed conditions was ‘damage to the back of your eye (diabetic retinopathy)’. In the Irish prevalence study, it was clarified that the prevalence of retinopathy was much lower than that reported by a previous study, The Cost of Diabetes in Ireland Study (CODEIRE) (retinopathy: 15% vs. 8.2%), outlining that this may be explained by differences in data collection methods (medical records vs. self-report). A regional study involving primary care patients (type 1 and type 2, and based on objective data), found a higher prevalence of 24.8%, similar to an estimate in a comparable cohort in a different region (25.6%).
We have amended the background section as follows (page 3, line 53):

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. DR affects 8.2% of the Irish population over 50 years with type 2 diabetes (1), and is the leading causes of blindness among adults of working age (2). This estimate is based on self-report; studies among regional cohorts of primary care patients with type 1 and 2, based on objective data, have reported higher estimates (25-26%) (3, 4).

"Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷". This is in Wales - is this range between GP surgeries or areas of Wales?

There should have been an additional reference here (Lawrenson et al.) citing range in the uptake rates across England. We have revised this line (61) to include reference to studies which illustrate the variation in uptake rates internationally. The Welsh paper by Thomas et al. reports the uptake of the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales (DRSSW) as 80%. This figure is included in the range now provided (page 3 line 64):

Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge internationally, with attendance rates ranging from 28-92% (8-14).

Are the appointments fixed time appointments? Are the patients able to change the time or place of the screening? Are the appointments weekdays and working day only?

People can contact RetinaScreen to change the time of the appointments. They cannot change the location; the appointment is offered for their local screening centre. Appointments are weekdays and during working day only. As part of a process to develop an intervention to improve the uptake of retinopathy screening (now cited in the ‘Recommendations for future research’ section on page 11) we conducted interviews and consensus meetings with people with diabetes. They reported difficulties arranging appointments during the day. We have clarified this point about rescheduling appointments in the methods section (page 4, line 87):

Once consented they receive an appointment for a fixed time in their local screening centre. They can contact RetinaScreen to change the time and date of their appointment.

We have also reflected on this in the discussion section (page 9, 216 -226):

An Irish study conducted in 2015 which surveyed people with diabetes attending general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics about screening behaviours, reported 91% had never previously heard of RetinaScreen (30). However, since then the programme has introduced further advertising and may be more familiar to people with diabetes. Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance. Similarly, a 2016 systematic review identified several individual, social, cultural and environmental barriers DRS attendance, including work commitments (e.g. finding it hard to take time off work) (25).

Maybe those who were recorded as already having attended screening thought that the service they had been using was as good (maybe more convenient) than the DRS?

Yes, this could be the case. People who we interviewed as part of our follow-up qualitative work were influenced by the familiarity or locality of an existing service. There was also confusion with regard to the service being offered by the national programme, RetinaScreen, and other providers. For example, some people were attending an optician and thought this was equivalent to attending the screening programme. RetinaScreen is quality assured and facilitates patients to access the appropriate treatment pathway should they require further treatment. Therefore, it is important patients participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify that people may find existing service more convenient (page 9, 216 -226) which links in with the point above in relation to appointment times:

Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance.

Barriers to consent would seem to me to be a bigger problem than attendance.

We agree. Providing consent is the first point at which people are required to interact with the programme. Therefore, as we would expect the main barriers occur this point, when people decide whether to participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify this in the discussion and abstract:

Discussion (page 8, line 208)
Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented, suggesting barriers may occur at this stage. Encouragingly, once consented, most people (96%, n = 365/382) attended their screening appointment.

Abstract (page 2, line 45):
Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake, in particular barriers to consent, should be a priority.
Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults". Diabetic retinopathy affects about 30% of people in England with diabetes and similar in Scotland so it's unlikely to be 8.2% in Ireland. That's any DR (one microaneurysm or more). If the authors mean sight threatening DR then this should be stated.

8.2% is the prevalence based on self-report among a cohort aged 50 and over with type 2 only who participated in The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (TILDA). Were the whole population to be taken into account including <50 years and people with type 1 this figure would be closer to 30%. In TILDA retinopathy was confirmed using the question ‘Has a doctor ever told you that you have any of the following conditions related to your diabetes?’. One of the listed conditions was ‘damage to the back of your eye (diabetic retinopathy)’. In the Irish prevalence study, it was clarified that the prevalence of retinopathy was much lower than that reported by a previous study, The Cost of Diabetes in Ireland Study (CODEIRE) (retinopathy: 15% vs. 8.2%), outlining that this may be explained by differences in data collection methods (medical records vs. self-report). A regional study involving primary care patients (type 1 and type 2, and based on objective data), found a higher prevalence of 24.8%, similar to an estimate in a comparable cohort in a different region (25.6%).
We have amended the background section as follows (page 3, line 53):

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. DR affects 8.2% of the Irish population over 50 years with type 2 diabetes (1), and is the leading causes of blindness among adults of working age (2). This estimate is based on self-report; studies among regional cohorts of primary care patients with type 1 and 2, based on objective data, have reported higher estimates (25-26%) (3, 4).

"Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷". This is in Wales - is this range between GP surgeries or areas of Wales?

There should have been an additional reference here (Lawrenson et al.) citing range in the uptake rates across England. We have revised this line (61) to include reference to studies which illustrate the variation in uptake rates internationally. The Welsh paper by Thomas et al. reports the uptake of the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales (DRSSW) as 80%. This figure is included in the range now provided (page 3 line 64):

Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge internationally, with attendance rates ranging from 28-92% (8-14).

Are the appointments fixed time appointments? Are the patients able to change the time or place of the screening? Are the appointments weekdays and working day only?

People can contact RetinaScreen to change the time of the appointments. They cannot change the location; the appointment is offered for their local screening centre. Appointments are weekdays and during working day only. As part of a process to develop an intervention to improve the uptake of retinopathy screening (now cited in the ‘Recommendations for future research’ section on page 11) we conducted interviews and consensus meetings with people with diabetes. They reported difficulties arranging appointments during the day. We have clarified this point about rescheduling appointments in the methods section (page 4, line 87):

Once consented they receive an appointment for a fixed time in their local screening centre. They can contact RetinaScreen to change the time and date of their appointment.

We have also reflected on this in the discussion section (page 9, 216 -226):

An Irish study conducted in 2015 which surveyed people with diabetes attending general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics about screening behaviours, reported 91% had never previously heard of RetinaScreen (30). However, since then the programme has introduced further advertising and may be more familiar to people with diabetes. Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance. Similarly, a 2016 systematic review identified several individual, social, cultural and environmental barriers DRS attendance, including work commitments (e.g. finding it hard to take time off work) (25).

Maybe those who were recorded as already having attended screening thought that the service they had been using was as good (maybe more convenient) than the DRS?

Yes, this could be the case. People who we interviewed as part of our follow-up qualitative work were influenced by the familiarity or locality of an existing service. There was also confusion with regard to the service being offered by the national programme, RetinaScreen, and other providers. For example, some people were attending an optician and thought this was equivalent to attending the screening programme. RetinaScreen is quality assured and facilitates patients to access the appropriate treatment pathway should they require further treatment. Therefore, it is important patients participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify that people may find existing service more convenient (page 9, 216 -226) which links in with the point above in relation to appointment times:

Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance.

Barriers to consent would seem to me to be a bigger problem than attendance.

We agree. Providing consent is the first point at which people are required to interact with the programme. Therefore, as we would expect the main barriers occur this point, when people decide whether to participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify this in the discussion and abstract:

Discussion (page 8, line 208)
Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented, suggesting barriers may occur at this stage. Encouragingly, once consented, most people (96%, n = 365/382) attended their screening appointment.

Abstract (page 2, line 45):
Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake, in particular barriers to consent, should be a priority.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 27 Nov 2019

Fiona Riordan, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

27 Nov 2019

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and ... Continue reading Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults". Diabetic retinopathy affects about 30% of people in England with diabetes and similar in Scotland so it's unlikely to be 8.2% in Ireland. That's any DR (one microaneurysm or more). If the authors mean sight threatening DR then this should be stated.

8.2% is the prevalence based on self-report among a cohort aged 50 and over with type 2 only who participated in The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (TILDA). Were the whole population to be taken into account including <50 years and people with type 1 this figure would be closer to 30%. In TILDA retinopathy was confirmed using the question ‘Has a doctor ever told you that you have any of the following conditions related to your diabetes?’. One of the listed conditions was ‘damage to the back of your eye (diabetic retinopathy)’. In the Irish prevalence study, it was clarified that the prevalence of retinopathy was much lower than that reported by a previous study, The Cost of Diabetes in Ireland Study (CODEIRE) (retinopathy: 15% vs. 8.2%), outlining that this may be explained by differences in data collection methods (medical records vs. self-report). A regional study involving primary care patients (type 1 and type 2, and based on objective data), found a higher prevalence of 24.8%, similar to an estimate in a comparable cohort in a different region (25.6%).
We have amended the background section as follows (page 3, line 53):

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. DR affects 8.2% of the Irish population over 50 years with type 2 diabetes (1), and is the leading causes of blindness among adults of working age (2). This estimate is based on self-report; studies among regional cohorts of primary care patients with type 1 and 2, based on objective data, have reported higher estimates (25-26%) (3, 4).

"Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷". This is in Wales - is this range between GP surgeries or areas of Wales?

There should have been an additional reference here (Lawrenson et al.) citing range in the uptake rates across England. We have revised this line (61) to include reference to studies which illustrate the variation in uptake rates internationally. The Welsh paper by Thomas et al. reports the uptake of the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales (DRSSW) as 80%. This figure is included in the range now provided (page 3 line 64):

Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge internationally, with attendance rates ranging from 28-92% (8-14).

Are the appointments fixed time appointments? Are the patients able to change the time or place of the screening? Are the appointments weekdays and working day only?

People can contact RetinaScreen to change the time of the appointments. They cannot change the location; the appointment is offered for their local screening centre. Appointments are weekdays and during working day only. As part of a process to develop an intervention to improve the uptake of retinopathy screening (now cited in the ‘Recommendations for future research’ section on page 11) we conducted interviews and consensus meetings with people with diabetes. They reported difficulties arranging appointments during the day. We have clarified this point about rescheduling appointments in the methods section (page 4, line 87):

Once consented they receive an appointment for a fixed time in their local screening centre. They can contact RetinaScreen to change the time and date of their appointment.

We have also reflected on this in the discussion section (page 9, 216 -226):

An Irish study conducted in 2015 which surveyed people with diabetes attending general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics about screening behaviours, reported 91% had never previously heard of RetinaScreen (30). However, since then the programme has introduced further advertising and may be more familiar to people with diabetes. Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance. Similarly, a 2016 systematic review identified several individual, social, cultural and environmental barriers DRS attendance, including work commitments (e.g. finding it hard to take time off work) (25).

Maybe those who were recorded as already having attended screening thought that the service they had been using was as good (maybe more convenient) than the DRS?

Yes, this could be the case. People who we interviewed as part of our follow-up qualitative work were influenced by the familiarity or locality of an existing service. There was also confusion with regard to the service being offered by the national programme, RetinaScreen, and other providers. For example, some people were attending an optician and thought this was equivalent to attending the screening programme. RetinaScreen is quality assured and facilitates patients to access the appropriate treatment pathway should they require further treatment. Therefore, it is important patients participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify that people may find existing service more convenient (page 9, 216 -226) which links in with the point above in relation to appointment times:

Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance.

Barriers to consent would seem to me to be a bigger problem than attendance.

We agree. Providing consent is the first point at which people are required to interact with the programme. Therefore, as we would expect the main barriers occur this point, when people decide whether to participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify this in the discussion and abstract:

Discussion (page 8, line 208)
Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented, suggesting barriers may occur at this stage. Encouragingly, once consented, most people (96%, n = 365/382) attended their screening appointment.

Abstract (page 2, line 45):
Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake, in particular barriers to consent, should be a priority.
Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults". Diabetic retinopathy affects about 30% of people in England with diabetes and similar in Scotland so it's unlikely to be 8.2% in Ireland. That's any DR (one microaneurysm or more). If the authors mean sight threatening DR then this should be stated.

8.2% is the prevalence based on self-report among a cohort aged 50 and over with type 2 only who participated in The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (TILDA). Were the whole population to be taken into account including <50 years and people with type 1 this figure would be closer to 30%. In TILDA retinopathy was confirmed using the question ‘Has a doctor ever told you that you have any of the following conditions related to your diabetes?’. One of the listed conditions was ‘damage to the back of your eye (diabetic retinopathy)’. In the Irish prevalence study, it was clarified that the prevalence of retinopathy was much lower than that reported by a previous study, The Cost of Diabetes in Ireland Study (CODEIRE) (retinopathy: 15% vs. 8.2%), outlining that this may be explained by differences in data collection methods (medical records vs. self-report). A regional study involving primary care patients (type 1 and type 2, and based on objective data), found a higher prevalence of 24.8%, similar to an estimate in a comparable cohort in a different region (25.6%).
We have amended the background section as follows (page 3, line 53):

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. DR affects 8.2% of the Irish population over 50 years with type 2 diabetes (1), and is the leading causes of blindness among adults of working age (2). This estimate is based on self-report; studies among regional cohorts of primary care patients with type 1 and 2, based on objective data, have reported higher estimates (25-26%) (3, 4).

"Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷". This is in Wales - is this range between GP surgeries or areas of Wales?

There should have been an additional reference here (Lawrenson et al.) citing range in the uptake rates across England. We have revised this line (61) to include reference to studies which illustrate the variation in uptake rates internationally. The Welsh paper by Thomas et al. reports the uptake of the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales (DRSSW) as 80%. This figure is included in the range now provided (page 3 line 64):

Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge internationally, with attendance rates ranging from 28-92% (8-14).

Are the appointments fixed time appointments? Are the patients able to change the time or place of the screening? Are the appointments weekdays and working day only?

People can contact RetinaScreen to change the time of the appointments. They cannot change the location; the appointment is offered for their local screening centre. Appointments are weekdays and during working day only. As part of a process to develop an intervention to improve the uptake of retinopathy screening (now cited in the ‘Recommendations for future research’ section on page 11) we conducted interviews and consensus meetings with people with diabetes. They reported difficulties arranging appointments during the day. We have clarified this point about rescheduling appointments in the methods section (page 4, line 87):

Once consented they receive an appointment for a fixed time in their local screening centre. They can contact RetinaScreen to change the time and date of their appointment.

We have also reflected on this in the discussion section (page 9, 216 -226):

An Irish study conducted in 2015 which surveyed people with diabetes attending general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics about screening behaviours, reported 91% had never previously heard of RetinaScreen (30). However, since then the programme has introduced further advertising and may be more familiar to people with diabetes. Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance. Similarly, a 2016 systematic review identified several individual, social, cultural and environmental barriers DRS attendance, including work commitments (e.g. finding it hard to take time off work) (25).

Maybe those who were recorded as already having attended screening thought that the service they had been using was as good (maybe more convenient) than the DRS?

Yes, this could be the case. People who we interviewed as part of our follow-up qualitative work were influenced by the familiarity or locality of an existing service. There was also confusion with regard to the service being offered by the national programme, RetinaScreen, and other providers. For example, some people were attending an optician and thought this was equivalent to attending the screening programme. RetinaScreen is quality assured and facilitates patients to access the appropriate treatment pathway should they require further treatment. Therefore, it is important patients participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify that people may find existing service more convenient (page 9, 216 -226) which links in with the point above in relation to appointment times:

Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance.

Barriers to consent would seem to me to be a bigger problem than attendance.

We agree. Providing consent is the first point at which people are required to interact with the programme. Therefore, as we would expect the main barriers occur this point, when people decide whether to participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify this in the discussion and abstract:

Discussion (page 8, line 208)
Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented, suggesting barriers may occur at this stage. Encouragingly, once consented, most people (96%, n = 365/382) attended their screening appointment.

Abstract (page 2, line 45):
Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake, in particular barriers to consent, should be a priority.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 08 Oct 2019

Amelia J. Lake, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14005.r26815

The study described in this paper is rigorously designed and conducted and an appropriate early step to optimise uptake of RetinaScreen, a nationally-coordinated retinal screening programme in Ireland.

The paper describes an audit of RetinaScreen registration, consent and uptake for adults living with diabetes from two primary care clinics. The audit was conducted during initial implementation (Nov 2013 – Aug 2015).

Of the audit population (N=722), 582 had been registered with RetinaScreen. Of those, 382 consented to be part of the RetinaScreen programme with 365 attending a retinal screening appointment.
With such high uptake for those who consented, the aim of the study was to identifying factors associated with non-consent to participate in RetinaScreen.

The authors reported that the only variable significantly associated with non-consent was whether people had previously attended another retinal screening service. This is a useful finding which highlights the importance of promoting ease and benefits of RetinaScreen to both customers and operators of existing private optometry practices.

I enjoyed reading the paper and the study is scientifically sound. I note the following points for consideration by the authors:

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
The work is clearly and accurately presented. However, many of the references cited are specific to the Irish context and/or reflect the time preceding and during the study period (i.e. <2016). The subject matter is relevant internationally and I suggest that the authors consider several reviews and studies (noted below) when discussing both known barriers and directions for future research.

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Although the authors discussed the limited nature of the source data, I suggest that they more strongly emphasise this point. Existing research has consistently demonstrated that demographic (e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity), clinical (e.g. sub-optimal glycaemic management) and psycho-social (e.g attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, healthcare professional recommendation, confusion between routine eye care and retinal screening) factors also strongly influence uptake and engagement with retinal screening programmes. Unfortunately, none of these factors could be considered in the current study.

Other points:
As noted by the authors, this work was conducted during an initial implementation phase and service innovation has evolved since the audit data was collected. As such, the paper would benefit from inclusion of a 'Recommendations for future research' section. Suggestions include: replication of this study (with a greater breadth of audit data) to revisit factors associated with non-consent; exploration of individual-level and practice-level barriers to RetinaScreen registration and consent to participate.If possible, the authors may like to comment on any work currently being undertaken in this area.

Minor citation, grammatical and formatting errors:

I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.
Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).
Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).
Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

In conclusion, the article is scientifically valid in it’s current form and I approve it for indexing. The issues that I have raised pertain to restrictions on the conclusions that can be drawn, given the limited data on which the analyses are based. Nonetheless, the findings are very interesting and will assist retinal screening programme implementers in determining where to direct promotional messaging and strategies, both nationally and internationally.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review on Patients’ Non-Attendance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15 (1). Publisher Full Text
2. Piyasena MMPN, Murthy GVS, Yip JLY, Gilbert C, et al.: Systematic review on barriers and enablers for access to diabetic retinopathy screening services in different income settings.PLoS One. 2019; 14 (4): e0198979 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Scanlon PH, Stratton IM, Leese GP, Bachmann MO, et al.: Screening attendance, age group and diabetic retinopathy level at first screen.Diabet Med. 33 (7): 904-11 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Diabetes, diabetic retinopathy screening and behavioural medicine.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 27 Nov 2019

Fiona Riordan, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

27 Nov 2019

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR and the risk has previously been reported as a barrier to attendance in the international literature (6, 18, 24-27).

(page 9, line 238 - 242)
In several international studies, a recommendation to attend screening from a primary care professional has been found to motivate DRS attendance (24-26, 29). A recent systematic review of barriers and enablers to DRS across different income groups cited poor patient-physician communication as a key barrier to DRS attendance.(27)

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Although the authors discussed the limited nature of the source data, I suggest that they more strongly emphasise this point. Existing research has consistently demonstrated that demographic (e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity), clinical (e.g. sub-optimal glycaemic management) and psycho-social (e.g attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, healthcare professional recommendation, confusion between routine eye care and retinal screening) factors also strongly influence uptake and engagement with retinal screening programmes. Unfortunately, none of these factors could be considered in the current study.

We have revised the limitations section to emphasise these other factors (page 10, line 258 – 262):
Unfortunately the data did not include several important factors which have consistently been found to be important in previous studies, for example, socio economic status (SES) (30-33), self-management, and history of glycaemic control (24), and psycho-social factors (e.g. attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about DRS (6, 18, 24-27) and recommendations from a health care professional (24-26, 29)).

Other points:
As noted by the authors, this work was conducted during an initial implementation phase and service innovation has evolved since the audit data was collected. As such, the paper would benefit from inclusion of a 'Recommendations for future research' section. Suggestions include: replication of this study (with a greater breadth of audit data) to revisit factors associated with non-consent; exploration of individual-level and practice-level barriers to RetinaScreen registration and consent to participate.If possible, the authors may like to comment on any work currently being undertaken in this area.

We have included the following section (page 11, line 264 -273) on future research with reference to studies in the UK, Canada and Australia:

Recommendations for future research
Given the limited nature of the data a consideration for future research could be to replicate this study using more extensive audit data. Data is routinely collected from practices participating in diabetes care initiatives across Ireland, for example, the Midlands Diabetes Structured Care Programme which reported on RetinaScreen uptake in the most recent audit (22). Determining how to enhance the uptake of DRS is recognised as an important implementation challenge for health systems, as evidenced by dedicated research programmes in the UK (13, 25), Canada (34, 35), and Australia (36). Qualitative work with Irish people with diabetes and health care professionals has been conducted to explore barriers and enablers of DRS uptake and to inform the development an intervention to be delivered in general practice (37). The feasibility trial of this intervention is currently underway (38).

Minor citation, grammatical and formatting errors:
I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.

We have amended this throughout.

Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).

Amended.

Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).

Amended; 140 is correct.

Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

These references have been added in appropriate location (line 57, 78, 84, 242)
Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR and the risk has previously been reported as a barrier to attendance in the international literature (6, 18, 24-27).

(page 9, line 238 - 242)
In several international studies, a recommendation to attend screening from a primary care professional has been found to motivate DRS attendance (24-26, 29). A recent systematic review of barriers and enablers to DRS across different income groups cited poor patient-physician communication as a key barrier to DRS attendance.(27)

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Although the authors discussed the limited nature of the source data, I suggest that they more strongly emphasise this point. Existing research has consistently demonstrated that demographic (e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity), clinical (e.g. sub-optimal glycaemic management) and psycho-social (e.g attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, healthcare professional recommendation, confusion between routine eye care and retinal screening) factors also strongly influence uptake and engagement with retinal screening programmes. Unfortunately, none of these factors could be considered in the current study.

We have revised the limitations section to emphasise these other factors (page 10, line 258 – 262):
Unfortunately the data did not include several important factors which have consistently been found to be important in previous studies, for example, socio economic status (SES) (30-33), self-management, and history of glycaemic control (24), and psycho-social factors (e.g. attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about DRS (6, 18, 24-27) and recommendations from a health care professional (24-26, 29)).

Other points:
As noted by the authors, this work was conducted during an initial implementation phase and service innovation has evolved since the audit data was collected. As such, the paper would benefit from inclusion of a 'Recommendations for future research' section. Suggestions include: replication of this study (with a greater breadth of audit data) to revisit factors associated with non-consent; exploration of individual-level and practice-level barriers to RetinaScreen registration and consent to participate.If possible, the authors may like to comment on any work currently being undertaken in this area.

We have included the following section (page 11, line 264 -273) on future research with reference to studies in the UK, Canada and Australia:

Recommendations for future research
Given the limited nature of the data a consideration for future research could be to replicate this study using more extensive audit data. Data is routinely collected from practices participating in diabetes care initiatives across Ireland, for example, the Midlands Diabetes Structured Care Programme which reported on RetinaScreen uptake in the most recent audit (22). Determining how to enhance the uptake of DRS is recognised as an important implementation challenge for health systems, as evidenced by dedicated research programmes in the UK (13, 25), Canada (34, 35), and Australia (36). Qualitative work with Irish people with diabetes and health care professionals has been conducted to explore barriers and enablers of DRS uptake and to inform the development an intervention to be delivered in general practice (37). The feasibility trial of this intervention is currently underway (38).

Minor citation, grammatical and formatting errors:
I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.

We have amended this throughout.

Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).

Amended.

Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).

Amended; 140 is correct.

Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

These references have been added in appropriate location (line 57, 78, 84, 242)
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 27 Nov 2019

Fiona Riordan, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

27 Nov 2019

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR and the risk has previously been reported as a barrier to attendance in the international literature (6, 18, 24-27).

(page 9, line 238 - 242)
In several international studies, a recommendation to attend screening from a primary care professional has been found to motivate DRS attendance (24-26, 29). A recent systematic review of barriers and enablers to DRS across different income groups cited poor patient-physician communication as a key barrier to DRS attendance.(27)

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Although the authors discussed the limited nature of the source data, I suggest that they more strongly emphasise this point. Existing research has consistently demonstrated that demographic (e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity), clinical (e.g. sub-optimal glycaemic management) and psycho-social (e.g attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, healthcare professional recommendation, confusion between routine eye care and retinal screening) factors also strongly influence uptake and engagement with retinal screening programmes. Unfortunately, none of these factors could be considered in the current study.

We have revised the limitations section to emphasise these other factors (page 10, line 258 – 262):
Unfortunately the data did not include several important factors which have consistently been found to be important in previous studies, for example, socio economic status (SES) (30-33), self-management, and history of glycaemic control (24), and psycho-social factors (e.g. attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about DRS (6, 18, 24-27) and recommendations from a health care professional (24-26, 29)).

Other points:
As noted by the authors, this work was conducted during an initial implementation phase and service innovation has evolved since the audit data was collected. As such, the paper would benefit from inclusion of a 'Recommendations for future research' section. Suggestions include: replication of this study (with a greater breadth of audit data) to revisit factors associated with non-consent; exploration of individual-level and practice-level barriers to RetinaScreen registration and consent to participate.If possible, the authors may like to comment on any work currently being undertaken in this area.

We have included the following section (page 11, line 264 -273) on future research with reference to studies in the UK, Canada and Australia:

Recommendations for future research
Given the limited nature of the data a consideration for future research could be to replicate this study using more extensive audit data. Data is routinely collected from practices participating in diabetes care initiatives across Ireland, for example, the Midlands Diabetes Structured Care Programme which reported on RetinaScreen uptake in the most recent audit (22). Determining how to enhance the uptake of DRS is recognised as an important implementation challenge for health systems, as evidenced by dedicated research programmes in the UK (13, 25), Canada (34, 35), and Australia (36). Qualitative work with Irish people with diabetes and health care professionals has been conducted to explore barriers and enablers of DRS uptake and to inform the development an intervention to be delivered in general practice (37). The feasibility trial of this intervention is currently underway (38).

Minor citation, grammatical and formatting errors:
I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.

We have amended this throughout.

Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).

Amended.

Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).

Amended; 140 is correct.

Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

These references have been added in appropriate location (line 57, 78, 84, 242)
Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR and the risk has previously been reported as a barrier to attendance in the international literature (6, 18, 24-27).

(page 9, line 238 - 242)
In several international studies, a recommendation to attend screening from a primary care professional has been found to motivate DRS attendance (24-26, 29). A recent systematic review of barriers and enablers to DRS across different income groups cited poor patient-physician communication as a key barrier to DRS attendance.(27)

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Although the authors discussed the limited nature of the source data, I suggest that they more strongly emphasise this point. Existing research has consistently demonstrated that demographic (e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity), clinical (e.g. sub-optimal glycaemic management) and psycho-social (e.g attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, healthcare professional recommendation, confusion between routine eye care and retinal screening) factors also strongly influence uptake and engagement with retinal screening programmes. Unfortunately, none of these factors could be considered in the current study.

We have revised the limitations section to emphasise these other factors (page 10, line 258 – 262):
Unfortunately the data did not include several important factors which have consistently been found to be important in previous studies, for example, socio economic status (SES) (30-33), self-management, and history of glycaemic control (24), and psycho-social factors (e.g. attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about DRS (6, 18, 24-27) and recommendations from a health care professional (24-26, 29)).

Other points:
As noted by the authors, this work was conducted during an initial implementation phase and service innovation has evolved since the audit data was collected. As such, the paper would benefit from inclusion of a 'Recommendations for future research' section. Suggestions include: replication of this study (with a greater breadth of audit data) to revisit factors associated with non-consent; exploration of individual-level and practice-level barriers to RetinaScreen registration and consent to participate.If possible, the authors may like to comment on any work currently being undertaken in this area.

We have included the following section (page 11, line 264 -273) on future research with reference to studies in the UK, Canada and Australia:

Recommendations for future research
Given the limited nature of the data a consideration for future research could be to replicate this study using more extensive audit data. Data is routinely collected from practices participating in diabetes care initiatives across Ireland, for example, the Midlands Diabetes Structured Care Programme which reported on RetinaScreen uptake in the most recent audit (22). Determining how to enhance the uptake of DRS is recognised as an important implementation challenge for health systems, as evidenced by dedicated research programmes in the UK (13, 25), Canada (34, 35), and Australia (36). Qualitative work with Irish people with diabetes and health care professionals has been conducted to explore barriers and enablers of DRS uptake and to inform the development an intervention to be delivered in general practice (37). The feasibility trial of this intervention is currently underway (38).

Minor citation, grammatical and formatting errors:
I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.

We have amended this throughout.

Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).

Amended.

Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).

Amended; 140 is correct.

Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

These references have been added in appropriate location (line 57, 78, 84, 242)
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 26 Jul 2019

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 3 (revision) 13 Dec 19		read
Version 2 (revision) 27 Nov 19		read
Version 1 26 Jul 19	read	read

Amelia J. Lake, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
Irene M. Stratton, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

33 Views

07 Jan 2020 | for Version 3

Irene M. Stratton, Gloucestershire Retinal Research Group, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK

33 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I am happy with those changes. Thank you.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Diabetic retinopathy, screening, ophthalmology, statistics.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

44 Views

04 Dec 2019 | for Version 2

Irene M. Stratton, Gloucestershire Retinal Research Group, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK

44 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Thank you for your careful responses to my questions and the changes you have made to the paper.

My main concern here is with the prominence given to the "8.2%" with diabetic retinopathy. Self-report is notoriously poor in the area of ophthalmology. I sit in a screening programme office for at least half a day a week and have done so for the past decade. Many of those attending for screening have no idea why they are having their eyes photographed and don't understand the report letters and so would not know if they had DR or not - especially if it was microaneurysms alone.

I am happy with the rest of the paper but this number should be relegated to the discussion and more reliable estimates of the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy provided.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Diabetic retinopathy, screening, ophthalmology, statistics.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

36 Views

14 Oct 2019 | for Version 1

Irene M. Stratton, Gloucestershire Retinal Research Group, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK

36 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Diabetic retinopathy, screening, ophthalmology, statistics.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

27 Nov 2019

Fiona Riordan, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

Thank you for your feedback. We have detailed our response to each comment below.

"Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 8.2% of the Irish population with type 2 diabetes over 50 years and is one of the leading causes of blindness among working-age adults". Diabetic retinopathy affects about 30% of people in England with diabetes and similar in Scotland so it's unlikely to be 8.2% in Ireland. That's any DR (one microaneurysm or more). If the authors mean sight threatening DR then this should be stated.

8.2% is the prevalence based on self-report among a cohort aged 50 and over with type 2 only who participated in The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (TILDA). Were the whole population to be taken into account including <50 years and people with type 1 this figure would be closer to 30%. In TILDA retinopathy was confirmed using the question ‘Has a doctor ever told you that you have any of the following conditions related to your diabetes?’. One of the listed conditions was ‘damage to the back of your eye (diabetic retinopathy)’. In the Irish prevalence study, it was clarified that the prevalence of retinopathy was much lower than that reported by a previous study, The Cost of Diabetes in Ireland Study (CODEIRE) (retinopathy: 15% vs. 8.2%), outlining that this may be explained by differences in data collection methods (medical records vs. self-report). A regional study involving primary care patients (type 1 and type 2, and based on objective data), found a higher prevalence of 24.8%, similar to an estimate in a comparable cohort in a different region (25.6%).
We have amended the background section as follows (page 3, line 53):

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. DR affects 8.2% of the Irish population over 50 years with type 2 diabetes (1), and is the leading causes of blindness among adults of working age (2). This estimate is based on self-report; studies among regional cohorts of primary care patients with type 1 and 2, based on objective data, have reported higher estimates (25-26%) (3, 4).

"Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge in countries such as the UK; with attendance rates ranging from 56–90%⁷". This is in Wales - is this range between GP surgeries or areas of Wales?

There should have been an additional reference here (Lawrenson et al.) citing range in the uptake rates across England. We have revised this line (61) to include reference to studies which illustrate the variation in uptake rates internationally. The Welsh paper by Thomas et al. reports the uptake of the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales (DRSSW) as 80%. This figure is included in the range now provided (page 3 line 64):

Screening uptake has also been identified as a challenge internationally, with attendance rates ranging from 28-92% (8-14).

Are the appointments fixed time appointments? Are the patients able to change the time or place of the screening? Are the appointments weekdays and working day only?

People can contact RetinaScreen to change the time of the appointments. They cannot change the location; the appointment is offered for their local screening centre. Appointments are weekdays and during working day only. As part of a process to develop an intervention to improve the uptake of retinopathy screening (now cited in the ‘Recommendations for future research’ section on page 11) we conducted interviews and consensus meetings with people with diabetes. They reported difficulties arranging appointments during the day. We have clarified this point about rescheduling appointments in the methods section (page 4, line 87):

Once consented they receive an appointment for a fixed time in their local screening centre. They can contact RetinaScreen to change the time and date of their appointment.

We have also reflected on this in the discussion section (page 9, 216 -226):

An Irish study conducted in 2015 which surveyed people with diabetes attending general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics about screening behaviours, reported 91% had never previously heard of RetinaScreen (30). However, since then the programme has introduced further advertising and may be more familiar to people with diabetes. Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance. Similarly, a 2016 systematic review identified several individual, social, cultural and environmental barriers DRS attendance, including work commitments (e.g. finding it hard to take time off work) (25).

Maybe those who were recorded as already having attended screening thought that the service they had been using was as good (maybe more convenient) than the DRS?

Yes, this could be the case. People who we interviewed as part of our follow-up qualitative work were influenced by the familiarity or locality of an existing service. There was also confusion with regard to the service being offered by the national programme, RetinaScreen, and other providers. For example, some people were attending an optician and thought this was equivalent to attending the screening programme. RetinaScreen is quality assured and facilitates patients to access the appropriate treatment pathway should they require further treatment. Therefore, it is important patients participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify that people may find existing service more convenient (page 9, 216 -226) which links in with the point above in relation to appointment times:

Conversely, those attending another screening service may find it is more convenient. RetinaScreen appointments are offered on weekdays and during the working day. It is possible that people may find it difficult to attend appointments at these times. Our follow-up qualitative work with patients indicated competing demands, including work and family commitments were barrier to attendance.

Barriers to consent would seem to me to be a bigger problem than attendance.

We agree. Providing consent is the first point at which people are required to interact with the programme. Therefore, as we would expect the main barriers occur this point, when people decide whether to participate in the programme. We have included a line to clarify this in the discussion and abstract:

Discussion (page 8, line 208)
Over one third of people eligible to participate in RetinaScreen had not consented, suggesting barriers may occur at this stage. Encouragingly, once consented, most people (96%, n = 365/382) attended their screening appointment.

Abstract (page 2, line 45):
Implementing strategies to improve DRS uptake, in particular barriers to consent, should be a priority.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

50 Views

08 Oct 2019 | for Version 1

Amelia J. Lake, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

50 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.
Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).
Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).
Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Diabetes, diabetic retinopathy screening and behavioural medicine.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

27 Nov 2019

Fiona Riordan, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

Thank you for your comments and feedback and for the suggested references. We have referenced these studies in the discussion:

(page 9, line 217 - 228)
A lack of awareness of DR and the risk has previously been reported as a barrier to attendance in the international literature (6, 18, 24-27).

(page 9, line 238 - 242)
In several international studies, a recommendation to attend screening from a primary care professional has been found to motivate DRS attendance (24-26, 29). A recent systematic review of barriers and enablers to DRS across different income groups cited poor patient-physician communication as a key barrier to DRS attendance.(27)

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Although the authors discussed the limited nature of the source data, I suggest that they more strongly emphasise this point. Existing research has consistently demonstrated that demographic (e.g. socioeconomic status, ethnicity), clinical (e.g. sub-optimal glycaemic management) and psycho-social (e.g attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, healthcare professional recommendation, confusion between routine eye care and retinal screening) factors also strongly influence uptake and engagement with retinal screening programmes. Unfortunately, none of these factors could be considered in the current study.

We have revised the limitations section to emphasise these other factors (page 10, line 258 – 262):
Unfortunately the data did not include several important factors which have consistently been found to be important in previous studies, for example, socio economic status (SES) (30-33), self-management, and history of glycaemic control (24), and psycho-social factors (e.g. attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about DRS (6, 18, 24-27) and recommendations from a health care professional (24-26, 29)).

Other points:
As noted by the authors, this work was conducted during an initial implementation phase and service innovation has evolved since the audit data was collected. As such, the paper would benefit from inclusion of a 'Recommendations for future research' section. Suggestions include: replication of this study (with a greater breadth of audit data) to revisit factors associated with non-consent; exploration of individual-level and practice-level barriers to RetinaScreen registration and consent to participate.If possible, the authors may like to comment on any work currently being undertaken in this area.

We have included the following section (page 11, line 264 -273) on future research with reference to studies in the UK, Canada and Australia:

Recommendations for future research
Given the limited nature of the data a consideration for future research could be to replicate this study using more extensive audit data. Data is routinely collected from practices participating in diabetes care initiatives across Ireland, for example, the Midlands Diabetes Structured Care Programme which reported on RetinaScreen uptake in the most recent audit (22). Determining how to enhance the uptake of DRS is recognised as an important implementation challenge for health systems, as evidenced by dedicated research programmes in the UK (13, 25), Canada (34, 35), and Australia (36). Qualitative work with Irish people with diabetes and health care professionals has been conducted to explore barriers and enablers of DRS uptake and to inform the development an intervention to be delivered in general practice (37). The feasibility trial of this intervention is currently underway (38).

Minor citation, grammatical and formatting errors:
I commend the authors’ use of person-centered language, which is in accordance with international practice (see diabetes language position statements published by Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association). I suggest that the authors replace ‘patient’ with appropriate terminology throughout the paper.

We have amended this throughout.

Please rectify typo in paragraph 1 of Methods (‘add’ repeated in the one sentence).

Amended.

Please amend disparity between the number of people with diabetes registered with RetinaScreen reported in-text (Methods para.1, n=141) and in Fig.3 (n=140).

Amended; 140 is correct.

Please include RetinaScreen (2019) citation and URL in references (see ‘single step registration and consent’ in Discussion) and include URL where appropriate (e.g. reference number 14, 16, 26).

These references have been added in appropriate location (line 57, 78, 84, 242)

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Tracey ML, McHugh SM, Buckley CM, et al.: The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes and related complications in a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50 and over in the Republic of Ireland. Diabet Med. 2016; 33(4): 441–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Kelliher C, Kenny D, O'Brien C: Trends in blind registration in the adult population of the Republic of Ireland 1996-2003. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90(3): 367–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Scanlon P: Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: Progress or Lack of Progress. Visual Dysfunction in Diabetes. Springer; 2012; 17–29. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. McHugh S, Buckley C, Murphy K, et al.: Quality-assured screening for diabetic retinopathy delivered in primary care in Ireland: an observational study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(607): e134–e40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Marsden P, Brennan C, McHugh S, et al.: Audit Report of the HSE Midland Diabetes Structured Care Programme. 2010. Reference Source

[6] 6. Dervan E, Lillis D, Flynn L, et al.: Factors that influence the patient uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. Ir J Med Sci. 2008; 177(4): 303–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Thomas RL, Dunstan FD, Luzio SD, et al.: Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy within a national diabetic retinopathy screening service. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015; 99(1): 64–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Forster AS, Forbes A, Dodhia H, et al.: Changes in detection of retinopathy in type 2 diabetes in the first 4 years of a population-based diabetic eye screening program: retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(9): 2663–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Millett C, Dodhia H: Diabetes retinopathy screening: audit of equity in participation and selected outcomes in South East London. J Med Screen. 2006; 13(3): 152–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Saadine JB, Fong DS, Yao J: Factors associated with follow-up eye examinations among persons with diabetes. Retina. 2008; 28(2): 195–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Leese GP, Boyle P, Feng Z, et al.: Screening uptake in a well-established diabetic retinopathy screening program: the role of geographical access and deprivation. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31(11): 2131–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. van Eijk KN, Blom JW, Gussekloo J, et al.: Diabetic retinopathy screening in patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care: Incentives and barriers to screening attendance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012; 96(1): 10–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Diabetic RetinaScreen: Programme Report 2013-2015. Reference Source

[14] 14. Kennedy F, Clarke M: Prevention & Early Intervention Series, Focussed Policy Assessment No.3. 2018. Reference Source

[15] 15. McHugh S, Buckley C, Murphy K, et al.: Quality-assured screening for diabetic retinopathy delivered in primary care in Ireland: an observational study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(607): e134–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Riordan FMS, Marsden P, Kearney P, et al.: Audit Report of the HSE Midland Diabetes Structured Care Programme. Dublin Mid-Leinster; 2017. Reference Source

[17] 17. Dervan E, Lillis D, Flynn L, et al.: Factors that influence the patient uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. Ir J Med Sci. 2008; 177(4): 303–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. van Eijk KN, Blom JW, Gussekloo J, et al.: Diabetic retinopathy screening in patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care: Incentives and barriers to screening attendance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012; 96(1): 10–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Lawrenson JG: Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: a systematic review of published and grey literature. Diabet Med. 2018; 35(10): 1308–1319.PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Bennett GH, Tuthill A: Investigating the Barriers to the Uptake of Diabetic RetinaScreen. Ir Med J. 2017; 110(9): 628. PubMed Abstract

[21] 21. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Shiyanbola OO, et al.: Factors influencing patient adherence with diabetic eye screening in rural communities: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0206742. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Scanlon PH: The English national screening programme for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. J Med Screen. 2008; 15(1): 1–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Gulliford MC, Dodhia H, Chamley M, et al.: Socio-economic and ethnic inequalities in diabetes retinal screening. Diabet Med. 2010; 27(3): 282–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Hwang J, Rudnisky C, Bowen S, et al.: Socioeconomic factors associated with visual impairment and ophthalmic care utilization in patients with type II diabetes. Can J Ophthalmol. 2015; 50(2): 119–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Kliner M, Fell G, Gibbons C, et al.: Diabetic retinopathy equity profile in a multi-ethnic, deprived population in Northern England. Eye (Lond). 2012; 26(5): 671–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. International Diabetes Federation (IDF): IDF Diabetes Atlas. 7th Edition. International Diabetes Federation (IDF); 2015. Reference Source

[27] 27. Tracey ML, Gilmartin M, O’Neill K, et al.: Epidemiology of diabetes and complications among adults in the Republic of Ireland 1998-2015: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16(1): 132. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme: An audit of patients with diabetes in two large primary care centres

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

National Screening Programme

Figure 1. Flow diagram illustrating process of consenting and attending to the programme.

Population

Research setting

Figure 2. Timeline of the national programme, RetinaScreen, and data collection at study sites.

Data collection

Data analysis

Ethical considerations

Results

Uptake of Diabetic RetinaScreen

Figure 3. Outcome status of individuals identified during data collection.

Characteristics of the target population

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample who were registered, stratified by outcome status (n = 581).

Predictors of consenting to Diabetic RetinaScreen

Table 2. Contextual predictors of consenting to RetinaScreen.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Ethics

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Understanding the uptake of a national retinopathy screening programme: An audit of patients with diabetes in two large primary care centres

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

National Screening Programme

Figure 1. Flow diagram illustrating process of consenting and attending to the programme.

Population

Research setting

Figure 2. Timeline of the national programme, RetinaScreen, and data collection at study sites.

Data collection

Data analysis

Ethical considerations

Results

Uptake of Diabetic RetinaScreen

Figure 3. Outcome status of individuals identified during data collection.

Characteristics of the target population

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample who were registered, stratified by outcome status (n = 581).

Predictors of consenting to Diabetic RetinaScreen

Table 2. Contextual predictors of consenting to RetinaScreen.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Ethics

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!