Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening

John G Lawrenson, Ella Graham-Rowe, Fabiana Lorencatto, Jennifer Burr, Catey Bunce, Jillian J Francis, Patricia Aluko, Stephen Rice, Luke Vale, Tunde Peto, Justin Presseau, Noah Ivers, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)
198 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Secondary objectives were:To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.Two review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62%) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12% (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs 'goal setting (outcome)' (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.Ten studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5% (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).Fourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.With the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8%) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)CD012054
JournalThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Volume1
Early online date15 Jan 2018
DOIs
Publication statusEarly online date - 15 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Diabetic Retinopathy
Quality Improvement
Confidence Intervals
Delivery of Health Care
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Language
Sex Education
Social Environment
Family Health
Risk Management
Vulnerable Populations
Risk-Taking
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Occupations
Social Class
MEDLINE
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Libraries
Health Services

Keywords

  • Costs and Cost Analysis
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
  • Diabetic Retinopathy
  • Humans
  • Patient Compliance
  • Quality Improvement
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Journal Article
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review

Cite this

Lawrenson, J. G., Graham-Rowe, E., Lorencatto, F., Burr, J., Bunce, C., Francis, J. J., ... Grimshaw, J. M. (2018). Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 1, CD012054. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012054.pub2
Lawrenson, John G ; Graham-Rowe, Ella ; Lorencatto, Fabiana ; Burr, Jennifer ; Bunce, Catey ; Francis, Jillian J ; Aluko, Patricia ; Rice, Stephen ; Vale, Luke ; Peto, Tunde ; Presseau, Justin ; Ivers, Noah ; Grimshaw, Jeremy M. / Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening. In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018 ; Vol. 1. pp. CD012054.
@article{4c598dede3664b56bb3ffd16cfe99f6f,
title = "Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Secondary objectives were:To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.Two review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62{\%}) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12{\%} (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95{\%} CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95{\%} CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs 'goal setting (outcome)' (RD 0.26, 95{\%} CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95{\%} CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95{\%} CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95{\%} CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.Ten studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5{\%} (RD 0.05, 95{\%} CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).Fourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.With the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8{\%}) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.",
keywords = "Costs and Cost Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Patient Compliance, Quality Improvement, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review",
author = "Lawrenson, {John G} and Ella Graham-Rowe and Fabiana Lorencatto and Jennifer Burr and Catey Bunce and Francis, {Jillian J} and Patricia Aluko and Stephen Rice and Luke Vale and Tunde Peto and Justin Presseau and Noah Ivers and Grimshaw, {Jeremy M}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD012054.pub2",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "CD012054",
journal = "Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

}

Lawrenson, JG, Graham-Rowe, E, Lorencatto, F, Burr, J, Bunce, C, Francis, JJ, Aluko, P, Rice, S, Vale, L, Peto, T, Presseau, J, Ivers, N & Grimshaw, JM 2018, 'Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening', The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, vol. 1, pp. CD012054. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012054.pub2

Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening. / Lawrenson, John G; Graham-Rowe, Ella; Lorencatto, Fabiana; Burr, Jennifer; Bunce, Catey; Francis, Jillian J; Aluko, Patricia; Rice, Stephen; Vale, Luke; Peto, Tunde; Presseau, Justin; Ivers, Noah; Grimshaw, Jeremy M.

In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Vol. 1, 15.01.2018, p. CD012054.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening

AU - Lawrenson, John G

AU - Graham-Rowe, Ella

AU - Lorencatto, Fabiana

AU - Burr, Jennifer

AU - Bunce, Catey

AU - Francis, Jillian J

AU - Aluko, Patricia

AU - Rice, Stephen

AU - Vale, Luke

AU - Peto, Tunde

AU - Presseau, Justin

AU - Ivers, Noah

AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M

PY - 2018/1/15

Y1 - 2018/1/15

N2 - BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Secondary objectives were:To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.Two review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62%) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12% (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs 'goal setting (outcome)' (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.Ten studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5% (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).Fourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.With the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8%) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.

AB - BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Secondary objectives were:To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.Two review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62%) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12% (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs 'goal setting (outcome)' (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.Ten studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5% (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).Fourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.With the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8%) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.

KW - Costs and Cost Analysis

KW - Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1

KW - Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

KW - Diabetic Retinopathy

KW - Humans

KW - Patient Compliance

KW - Quality Improvement

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Journal Article

KW - Meta-Analysis

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

KW - Review

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD012054.pub2

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD012054.pub2

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29333660

VL - 1

SP - CD012054

JO - Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)

JF - Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)

SN - 1469-493X

ER -