Social Determinants of Health and Perceived Barriers to Care in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening

Factors Affecting Global Adherence for the Uptake of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening global adherence rate and the association between sociodemographic and clinical variables and adherence rates to DR screening in individuals with diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42024507035). We conducted a systematic review of relevant literature from inception of databases to February 24, 2024, using electronic databases searches including PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CDSR and national level DR screening databases through Google searches following PRISMA guidelines. The articles were screened for title and abstract and then for the full-text reports by two independent reviewers and study quality was appraised. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects model to calculate the pooled effects size and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each finding.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 11,383,715 participants from 77 studies and two national websites from 28 countries over five continents were included. Global DR screening adherence rate was 66.9% in high-income countries and 39.3% in low-and-middle-income countries. DR screening adherence rate was lowest in Africa (36.1%) and was highest in Europe (81.3%). Older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.62), higher education level (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.45-1.78), marriage (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.77), living in an urban area (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.08-2.29), higher family income (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.24-1.35), having any health insurance (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.56-2.31), longer duration of diabetes (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.27-1.94), type 2 diabetes (OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.34-2.10), family history of diabetes (OR = 2.25, 95% CI 1.56-3.25), vision impairment (OR = 2.07, 95% CI 1.43-2.98), history of eye diseases (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.36-2.90), insulin treatment (OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.37-1.39), and good mental health (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.24) were associated with DR screening adherence.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides key information about which population subgroups may require more targeted intervention and highlights the urgent need to identify ways to improve adherence to DR screening.

REGISTRATION INFORMATION

PROSPERO; ref. no. CRD42024507035, (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=507035).

Studying harms of interventions with an equity lens in randomized trials

Equity and health equity are fundamental pillars in fostering a just and inclusive society. While equity underscores fairness in resource allocation and opportunity, health equity aims to eradicate avoidable health disparities among social groups. The concept of harms in interventions-undesirable consequences associated with the use of interventions-often varies across populations due to biological and social factors, necessitating a nuanced understanding. An equity lens reveals disparities in harm distribution, urging researchers and policymakers to address these differences in their decision-making processes. Furthermore, interventions, even well-intentioned ones, can inadvertently exacerbate disparities, emphasizing the need for comprehensive harm assessment. Integrating equity considerations in research practices and trial methodologies, through study design or through practices such as inclusive participant recruitment, is pivotal in advancing health equity. By prioritizing interventions that address disparities and ensuring inclusivity in research, we can foster a more equitable healthcare system.

Charity Care in Ophthalmology, 2024

PURPOSE

To review changes in the provision of charity eye care in the past 50 years with hypothesized resulting effects on surgical training and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Case report, comparison of experience in community and training program settings, and selected literature review.

RESULTS

The population to which charity care applies has shrunk as broader insurance coverage has been legislated, but in 2023 remains at approximately 7.3% of the US population. In areas with ophthalmology training programs, house staff supervised by faculty provide most of the charity care. In areas without training programs, a shrinking pool of willing private practitioners provides charity care. Because there is no organized financial support behind provision of charity, nonanecdotal data needed to assess the problem and guide decision making are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Charity eye care in ophthalmology in 2024 is a patchwork of transient, local efforts that have a few common themes: absent material basis for sustainability, a narrowing base of support by clinicians, transfer of care to training programs, and financial vetting of applicants by nonclinicians. Unless universal health care legislation passes, which would eliminate the issue, suggestions for improvement include broader voluntary participation by private practice ophthalmologists in charity eye care, allocation of charity care spending by nonprofit hospitals to support this effort, and clinician-determined criteria for provision of charitable surgery supported by involved hospital systems.

Teleophthalmology provides earlier eye care access for patients with newly-diagnosed diabetes

Purpose

Timely diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy is important in preventing vision loss. This study aims to determine if remote retinal imaging enables earlier eye care access among newly-diagnosed diabetic patients.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Methods

Using the OptumLabs® Data Warehouse - a longitudinal, real-world dataset containing deidentified administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data, we included 968 846 adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and at least 1 year of continuous enrollment. We compared time from initial diabetes diagnosis to first eye exam by remote screening or in-person eye exam.

Results

We found that at year 1 after diagnosis, 5459 (0.56%) patients underwent remote imaging and 208 023 (21.5%) underwent in-person exam. The mean (95% CI) time to eye exam was 3.48 (3.38-3.58) months for remote imaging and 4.22 (4.20-4.23) months for in-person visits (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, 27.5% of remote screenings were performed on the same day of diabetes diagnosis. Excluding same-day encounters, mean time to eye exam was 4.80 (4.68-4.91) months for remote imaging and 4.85 (4.83-4.86) months for in-person eyecare (p = 0.4).

Conclusions

Thus, teleophthalmology may enable earlier eye care access among patients with newly-diagnosed diabetes, primarily with same-day screenings. Increased adoption of teleretinal screening may enable earlier detection of diabetic retinopathy and prevent vision loss.