Screening for diabetic retinopathy with or without a copayment in a randomized controlled trial: influence of the inverse care law.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the inverse care law operates in a screening program for diabetic retinopathy (DR) based on fee for service in Hong Kong. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: All those with type 1 or 2 diabetes from 2 clinics were recruited. INTERVENTION: Diabetic retinopathy screening with a small copayment versus free access in a publicly funded family medicine service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of screening and severity of DR detected. Association between these outcome variables and independent variables were determined using multivariate logistic regression models and reported as odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: After randomization, 1387 subjects in the free group and 1379 subjects in the pay group were eligible for screening, and 94.9% (1316/1387) and 92.6% (1277/1379), respectively, agreed to participate in the study. The offer of screening was accepted by 94.8% (1247/1316) in the free group and 91.2% (1164/1277) in the pay group, and the final uptake ratios were 88.5% (1165/1316) and 82.4% (1052/1277), respectively (Pearson chi = 19.74, P<0.001). Being in the pay group was associated with a lower uptake of screening than being in the free group (OR, 0.59; confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.74) and a lower detection rate of DR (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.60-0.90) after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Subjects with higher socioeconomic status were more likely to attend screening and had a lower prevalence of DR detected. CONCLUSIONS: The inverse care law seems to operate in a preventive intervention when a relatively small copayment is applied. There is a case for making effective preventive services free of charge. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Prospective Comparative Study Investigating Agreement between Tele-Ophthalmology and Face-to-face Consultations in Patients Presenting with Chronic Visual Loss.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of store-and-forward tele-ophthalmology consultations for non-diabetic patients, aged 40 and above, presenting with vision impairment of 3 months or more, in terms of cataracts, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: This is a prospective comparative study. Enrolled subjects were independently assessed by both tele-ophthalmology and face-to-face assessment. Agreement level between the two modalities for diagnosis and severity were compared using kappa statistic. Diagnostic accuracy of tele-ophthalmology was determined using the face-to-face consultation serving as the gold standard. Costs were compared by calculating the downstream costs generated by each modality in terms of investigations and treatment. RESULTS: A total of 860 eyes of 430 patients were assessed during the study period. Tele-ophthalmology consultations had significantly high agreement with face-to-face consultations in the diagnosis and grading of all three ocular conditions; cataracts, glaucoma, and AMD. Diagnosis and grading of cataracts and AMD reached [Formula: see text] values of > 0.8, while diagnosis and grading of glaucoma reached [Formula: see text] values between 0.61 and 0.8. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, tele-ophthalmology consultations were highly sensitive and specific for AMD with greater than 99% sensitivity and specificity achieved by tele-ophthalmology. There was high specificity when diagnosing cataracts, but lower sensitivity at 87.8%. Conversely, there was high sensitivity for diagnosing glaucoma, but lower specificity at 76.5%. Downstream costs were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Store-and-forward tele-ophthalmology consultations are accurate and comparable to face-to-face consultations for diagnosis and grading of cataracts, glaucoma, and AMD.

Screening for diabetic retinopathy with different levels of financial incentive in a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To examine the impact of different levels of financial incentive in terms of fee subsidization on diabetic retinopathy screening in the private primary care setting in Hong Kong. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All general practitioners working in the private sector and registered in two electronic public databases were invited to participate. Consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus were then recruited by the participating practitioners. The recruited participants were randomly allocated to one of three screening groups with different fee levels (HK$0, HK$150 [US$19], HK$300 [US$39]) in a randomized controlled trial. Screening uptake and severity of diabetic retinopathy detected were compared. RESULTS: Out of 1,688 eligible practitioners, 105 participated and invited 402 patients, with 239 initially agreeing to participate (59.5%). After randomization, 78, 75 and 76 participants in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 fee groups, respectively, reconfirmed their participation and were offered screening at the relevant fee. The uptake of screening was 79.5% (62/78), 81.3% (61/75) and 63.2% (48/76), in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 groups, respectively (P < 0.018). Being in the HK$150 fee group was associated with higher uptake of screening than being in the HK$300 fee group (odds ratio 2.31, P = 0.039). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of any diabetic retinopathy (33.9%, 27.9% and 37.5%, P = 0.378) or sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (4.8%, 8.2% and 16.7%; P = 0.092) among the groups. CONCLUSION: A screening fee of HK$150, representing approximately a half subsidy, appears to be as effective in maximizing uptake as a full subsidy (HK$0) and without deterring those at high risk of diabetic retinopathy from screening.

Systematic screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in Hong Kong: prevalence of DR and visual impairment among diabetic population.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR), sight threatening DR (STDR), visual impairment and other eye diseases in a systematic DR screening programme among primary care Chinese patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in Hong Kong. METHODS: Screening for DR was provided to all subjects with DM in public primary care using digital fundus photography according to the English national screening programme. STDR was defined as preproliferative DR (R2), proliferative DR (R3) and/or maculopathy (M1). The presence of other eye diseases was noted. Visual impairment was classified as none (visual acuity in the better eye of 6/18 or better), mild (6/18 to >6/60) and severe (6/60 or worse). RESULTS: Of 174 532 subjects screened, most had never been screened before. The prevalence of DR was 39.0% (95% CI 38.8% to 39.2%) and STDR 9.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 9.9%). The most common DR status was R1 (35.7%), followed by M1 (8.6%), R2 (3.0%) and R3 (0.3%). The prevalence of mild and severe visual impairment was 4.2% and 1.3%, respectively. Subjects with STDR had a higher prevalence (9.8%) of visual impairment than those without (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: DR was prevalent in this population and one in 10 had STDR. This suggests the need for systematic screening to ensure timely referral to an ophthalmologist for monitoring and/or treatment.