Patient, family member, and health care provider perspective on barriers and facilitators to diabetic retinopathy screening in Thailand: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) can cause significant visual impairment which can be largely avoided by early detection through proper screening and treatment. People with DR face a number of challenges from early detection to treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that influence DR screening in Thailand and to identify barriers to follow-up compliance from patient, family member, and health care provider (HCP) perspectives. METHODS: A total of 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, each with five to twelve participants. There were three distinct stakeholders: diabetic patients (n = 47) presenting to a diabetic retinopathy clinic in Thailand, their family members (n = 41), and health care providers (n = 34). All focus group conversations were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to examine textual material. RESULTS: Different themes emerged from the FGD on knowledge about diabetes, self-care behaviors of diabetes mellitus (DM), awareness about DR, barriers to DR screening, and the suggested solutions to address those barriers. Data showed lower knowledge and awareness about diabetes and DR in both patients and family members. Long waiting times, financial issues, and lack of a person to accompany appointments were identified as the major deterrents for attending DR screening. Family support for patients was found to vary widely, with some patients reporting to have received adequate support while others reported having received minimal support. Even though insurance covered the cost of attending diabetes/DR screening program, some patients did not show up for their appointments. CONCLUSION: Patients need to be well-informed about the asymptomatic nature of diabetes and DR. Communication at the patient level and shared decision-making with HCPs are essential. Family members and non-physician clinicians (such as diabetes nurses, diabetes educators, physician assistants) who work in the field of diabetes play a vital role in encouraging patients to attend diabetes and DR follow-ups visits regularly.

Compliance with follow-up in patients with diabetic macular edema: Eye care center vs. diabetes care center.

Purpose: The study was conducted to compare the compliance to intravitreal injection treatment and follow-up in patients with center-involving diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and treatment outcomes between a tertiary eye care facility and a tertiary diabetes care center. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on treatment naïve DME patients who had received intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections in 2019. Participants were people with type 2 diabetes who were under regular care at the eye care center or the diabetes care center in Chennai. The outcome measures were noted at months 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12. Results: A review of 136 patients treated for CI-DME (72 from the eye care center and 64 from a diabetes care center) was carried out. The severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) was similar in both centers. There was no statistically significant (P > 0.05) difference in the choice of initial intravitreal drug in the two centers. At 12-month follow-up, only 29.16% came for a follow-up in the eye center vs. 76.56% in a diabetes care center (P = 0.000). The multivariate logistic regression showed increasing age was associated with non-compliance in both the groups (eye care center: odds ratio [OR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.21; P = 0.044) and diabetes care center (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.02-1.29; P = 0.020). Conclusion: The follow-up rate between eye care and diabetic care center with DME showed a significant disparity. By providing comprehensive diabetes care for all complications under one roof, compliance with follow-up can be improved in people with DME.

Low-vision intervention for oculocutaneous albinism in a Tertiary Eye Care Hospital in India.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study on patients with albinism in different age groups was to compare their level of visual impairment with the low-vision intervention (LVI) and its benefit. METHODS: The medical records of 72 patients with low vision secondary to albinism who were referred to the low vision care clinic from 2015 to 2017 were analyzed. This included the demographic profile such as age, gender, occupation, ocular history, visual acuity status, and type of low-vision device (LVD) preferred. The LVDs prescribed and its subsequent improvement was compared. RESULTS: In this data, 70 (97.2%) people had oculocutaneous albinism and 2 (2.8%) had ocular albinism. Majority of the patients had hyperopic astigmatism 42 (58.3%) and with-the-rule astigmatism 58 (93.5%). Presenting mean visual acuity for distance was noted to be 0.88 logMAR which improved to 0.83 logMAR with the help of spectacle correction. The most commonly prescribed LVD was a dome magnifier for 15 (34.9%) patients. In all the patients, there was statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05) in near vision with the help of LVDs. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the importance of appropriate LVI for each subdivided age group. Patients with albinism who have received medical and surgical treatment have no or a limited role in restoring useful vision.

Patient and provider perspectives on barriers to screening for diabetic retinopathy: an exploratory study from southern India.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the leading causes of visual impairment after cataract and uncorrected refractive error. It has major public health implications globally, especially in countries such as India where the prevalence of diabetes is high. With timely screening and intervention, the disease progression to blindness can be prevented, but several barriers exist. As compliance to diabetic retinopathy screening in people with diabetes is very poor in India, this study was conducted to explore understanding of and barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening from the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers. METHODS: Using qualitative methods, 15 consenting adult patients with diabetes were selected purposively from those attending a large tertiary care private eye hospital in southern India. Eight semistructured interviews were carried out with healthcare providers working in large private hospitals. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Four themes that best explained the data were recognising and living with diabetes, care-seeking practices, awareness about diabetic retinopathy and barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening. Findings showed that patients were aware of diabetes but understanding of diabetic retinopathy and its complications was poor. Absence of symptoms, difficulties in doctor-patient interactions and tedious nature of follow-up care were some major deterrents to care seeking reported by patients. Difficulties in communicating information about diabetic retinopathy to less literate patients, heavy work pressure and silent progression of the disease were major barriers to patients coming for follow-up care as reported by healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing patient understanding through friendly doctor-patient interactions will promote trust in the doctor. The use of an integrated treatment approach including education by counsellors, setting up of patient support groups, telescreening approaches and use of conversation maps may prove more effective in the long run.

Low-vision intervention in individuals with age-related macular degeneration.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to estimate the level of visual impairment in patients diagnosed to have age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) who presented to low-vision care (LVC) clinic at a tertiary eye care center in India, to analyze the type of distant and near devices prescribed to them and to compare the visual benefit in different age groups among patients with ARMD. Methods: A retrospective review was done for 91 patients with low-vision secondary to ARMD who were referred to the LVC clinic from 2016 to 2017. Demographic profile: age, gender, occupation, ocular history, visual acuity status, and type of low-vision device (LVD) preferred were documented. The details of LVDs and subsequent improvements were noted. Result: Of the 91 patients, 64 (70.3%) were men and 27 (29.7%) were women. Of the cases which were referred, 36.26% had a severe visual impairment (VI), 32.96% had moderate VI, 28.57% had mild VI, and 5.49% had profound VI. The majority of the patients had myopia 57 (62.63%), followed by hyperopia in 25 (27.47%) subjects. The subjects were divided into three groups based on age 40-65 years, 66-75 years, and above 75 years for the analysis of VI. There was a statistically significant improvement (P < 0.01) in near vision with the help of LVDs in all three groups. SEE TV binocular telescope was the most commonly prescribed LVD for viewing distant objects. The most commonly preferred magnifier for near work was half-eye spectacle (56%) followed by stand magnifier (9.9%) and portable video magnifier (9.9%). Conclusion: The use of LVDs can help these patients with ARMD in cases where medical and surgical treatment have no or a limited role in restoring useful vision.

Factors influencing the choice of low-vision devices for visual rehabilitation in Stargardt disease.

BACKGROUND: Stargardt disease is the most common cause of juvenile macular degeneration leading to early central visual loss. Dispensing of correct low-vision devices based on the residual visual function and specific visual requirements of a patient can result in a positive outcome. It is important to know the factors involved in the selection of these devices. This study was undertaken to assess these factors. METHODS: Patients with Stargardt disease referred to a low-vision clinic underwent evaluation of visual status, disease stage, visual requirements and lifestyle. They were evaluated for suitability for successful use of various low-vision devices. Their education level and occupation were noted. They were counselled regarding the proper use of the devices and lifestyle modifications. For patients with extensive use of computers, modifications related to contrast, font size and audio software were explained. RESULTS: Among the 97 patients in the study (age range 7-66 years, mean 23.7 ± 13.1), there were 49 (50.5 per cent) students, 36 (37.1 per cent) employed, eight (8.2 per cent) unemployed, and four (4.2 per cent) homemakers. Except for seven patients (7.2 per cent), all were literate, with education ranging from primary school to college graduation. The presenting visual acuity for distance was 0.10-1.47 (0.79 ± 0.28), and for near was N4-N40 (N9.95 ± 6.65). This acuity showed positive correlation with age (p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.16) and with magnification required (p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.26). Patients above 40 years preferred higher adds and half-eye glasses, whereas younger patients preferred dome magnifiers. The occupation also influenced the choice. Disease stage was seen to affect the choice with advanced stages requiring higher magnifiers (p = 0.03, R2 = 0.11). Duration of disease and the magnification of low-vision devices showed a positive correlation (p = 0.03, R2 = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Age, presenting visual acuity, disease stage, duration, education and occupation influenced the choice of low-vision devices in patients with Stargardt disease. However, they appear to be interdependent and a larger, controlled study is required to provide information on the individual effect.