Evidence mapPaperPMID 31013274Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Systematic review on barriers and enablers for access to diabetic retinopathy screening services in different income settings.

Mapa Mudiyanselage Prabhath Nishantha Piyasena, Gudlavalleti Venkata S Murthy, Jennifer L Y Yip, Clare Gilbert, Maria Zuurmond, Tunde Peto, Iris Gordon, Suwin Hewage, Sureshkumar Kamalakannan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mapa Mudiyanselage Prabhath Nishantha PiyasenaClinical Research Department, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0236-0101
Gudlavalleti Venkata S MurthyClinical Research Department, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jennifer L Y YipClinical Research Department, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Clare GilbertClinical Research Department, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Maria ZuurmondClinical Research Department, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Tunde PetoCentre for Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Iris GordonClinical Research Department, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Suwin HewageRetina Unit, Department of Vitreo-retina, National Eye Hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-8459-4840
Sureshkumar KamalakannanDepartment of Eye Health and Disability, Indian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBInstitute of Public Health Bengaluru · INNational Hospital of Sri Lanka · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) can lead to visual impairment and blindness if not detected and treated in time. Knowing the barriers/enablers in advance in contrasting different country income settings may accelerate development of a successful DR screening (DRS) program. This would be especially applicable in the low-income settings with the rising prevalence of DR.

objectivesThe aim of this systematic review is to identify and contrast the barriers/enablers to DRS for different contexts using both consumers i.e., people with diabetes (PwDM) and provider perspectives and system level factors in different country income settings.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library from the databases start date to December 2018. We included the studies reported on barriers and enablers to access DRS services based at health care facilities. We categorised and synthesized themes related to the consumers (individuals), providers and the health systems (environment) as main dimensions according to the constructs of social cognitive theory, supported by the quantitative measures i.e., odds ratios as reported by each of the study authors. MAIN

resultsWe included 77 studies primarily describing the barriers and enablers. Most of the studies were from high income settings (72.7%, 56/77) and cross sectional in design (76.6%, 59/77). From the perspectives of consumers, lack of knowledge, attitude, awareness and motivation were identified as major barriers. The enablers were fear of blindness, proximity of screening facility, experiences of vision loss and being concerned of eye complications. In providers' perspectives, lack of skilled human resources, training programs, infrastructure of retinal imaging and cost of services were the main barriers. Higher odds of uptake of DRS services was observed when PwDM were provided health education (odds ratio (OR) 4.3) and having knowledge on DR (OR range 1.3-19.7).

conclusionKnowing the barriers to access DRS is a pre-requisite in development of a successful screening program. The awareness, knowledge and attitude of the consumers, availability of skilled human resources and infrastructure emerged as the major barriers to access to DRS in any income setting.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIncomeMaleMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID31013274
PMCPMC6478270
OpenAlexW2941617058

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.