Barriers to retinopathy screening in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes

Health-Care Utilization and Outcomes in Young Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Young adulthood can be a challenging time for individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) as they experience increasing independence and life transitions, which can make it difficult to engage in DM self care. Compared to older adults, young adults are more likely to have higher glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). They also often have lower adherence to standards of care in DM, and higher utilization of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis. This review describes health-care utilization and explores factors that may contribute to high HbA1c among young adults with DM. In addition, it discusses the unique health-care needs of young adults with DM, examines the role of technology in their DM care, and analyzes the effects of social determinants of health on their health-care utilization.

Autonomous artificial intelligence increases screening and follow-up for diabetic retinopathy in youth: the ACCESS randomized control trial

Diabetic retinopathy can be prevented with screening and early detection. We hypothesized that autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) diabetic eye exams at the point-of-care would increase diabetic eye exam completion rates in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population. AI for Children's diabetiC Eye ExamS (NCT05131451) is a parallel randomized controlled trial that randomized youth (ages 8-21 years) with type 1 and type 2 diabetes to intervention (autonomous artificial intelligence diabetic eye exam at the point of care), or control (scripted eye care provider referral and education) in an academic pediatric diabetes center. The primary outcome was diabetic eye exam completion rate within 6 months. The secondary outcome was the proportion of participants who completed follow-through with an eye care provider if deemed appropriate. Diabetic eye exam completion rate was significantly higher (100%, 95%CI: 95.5%, 100%) in the intervention group (n = 81) than the control group (n = 83) (22%, 95%CI: 14.2%, 32.4%)(p < 0.001). In the intervention arm, 25/81 participants had an abnormal result, of whom 64% (16/25) completed follow-through with an eye care provider, compared to 22% in the control arm (p < 0.001). Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates in youth with diabetes.

Barriers and enablers to diabetic eye screening attendance: An interview study with young adults with type 1 diabetes

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of diabetic eye screening (DES) attendance amongst young adults with diabetes living in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Semistructured qualitative interviews with adults aged 18-34 years with diabetes. Participants were purposively sampled to aim for representation across gender, geographical locations, diabetes type, years since diabetes diagnosis and patterns of attendance (i.e. regular attenders, occasional non-attenders, regular non-attenders). Data were collected and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore potential individual, sociocultural and environmental influences on attendance. Data were analysed using a combined deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach. Barriers/enablers were mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to identify potential strategies to increase attendance.

RESULTS

Key barriers to attendance reported by the sample of 29 study participants with type 1 diabetes, fell within the TDF domains: [Knowledge] (e.g. not understanding reasons for attending DES or treatments available if diabetic retinopathy is detected), [Social Influences] (e.g. lack of support following DES results), [Social role and Identity] (e.g. not knowing other people their age with diabetes, feeling 'isolated' and being reluctant to disclose their diabetes) and [Environmental Context and Resources] (e.g. lack of appointment flexibility and options for rescheduling). Enablers included: [Social Influences] (e.g. support of family/diabetes team), [Goals] (e.g. DES regarded as 'high priority'). Many of the reported barriers/enablers were consistent across groups. Potential BCTs to support attendance include Instructions on how to perform the behaviour; Information about health consequences; Social support (practical) and Social comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Attendance to diabetic eye screening in young adults is influenced by a complex set of interacting factors. Identification of potentially modifiable target behaviours provides a basis for designing more effective, tailored interventions to help young adults regularly attend eye screening and prevent avoidable vision loss.