Correction to: Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Riordan F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7393863 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction to: Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.
Riordan Fiona F Racine Emmy E Phillip Eunice T ET Bradley Colin C Lorencatto Fabiana F Murphy Mark M Murphy Aileen A Browne John J Smith Susan M SM Kearney Patricia M PM McHugh Sheena M SM
Implementation science : IS 20200730 1
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence.MethodsFirst, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness.ResultsWe identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients.ConclusionsUsing the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.
| S-EPMC7236930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe application of economic analysis within implementation science is still developing and the cost of intervention development, which differs markedly from the costs of initial implementation and maintenance, is often overlooked. Our aim was to retrospectively cost the development of a multifaceted intervention in primary care to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening.MethodsA retrospective micro costing of developing the intervention from the research funder perspective was conducted. It was based on a systematic intervention development process involving analysis of existing audit data and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), conducting consensus meetings with patients and HCPs, and using these data together with a rapid review of the effectiveness of interventions, to inform the final intervention. Both direct (non-personnel, e.g. travel, stationary, room hire) and indirect (personnel) costs were included. Data sources included researcher time logs, payroll data, salary scales, an online financial management system, invoices and purchase orders. Personnel involved in the intervention development were consulted to determine the activities they conducted and the duration of their involvement. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope.ResultsThe total cost of intervention development (July 2014-January 2019) was €40,485 of which 78% were indirect (personnel) costs (€31,451). In total, personnel contributed 1368 h to intervention development. Highest cost activities were the patient interviews, and consensus process, contributing 23% and 34% of the total cost. Varying estimated time spent on intervention development activities by + 10% increased total intervention development cost by 6% to €42,982.ConclusionsOur results highlight that intervention development requires a significant amount of human capital input, combining research experience, patient and public experience, and expert knowledge in relevant fields. The time committed to intervention development is critical but has a significant opportunity cost. With limited resources for research on developing and implementing interventions, capturing intervention development costs and incorporating them as part of assessment of cost-effective interventions, could inform research priority and resource allocation decisions.
| S-EPMC7877098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) leads to the earlier detection of retinopathy and treatment that can prevent or delay the development of diabetes-related blindness. However, uptake continues to be sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. Routine management of type 2 diabetes largely takes place in primary care. As such, there may be an opportunity in primary care to introduce interventions to improve DRS uptake. However, few studies test the feasibility of interventions to enhance DRS uptake in this context. Our aim is to investigate the feasibility of an implementation intervention (IDEAs (Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance)) delivered in general practice to improve the uptake of the national DRS programme, RetinaScreen.MethodsThe IDEAs study is a cluster randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Following stratification by practice size, eight general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated to intervention (n = 4) or wait-list control groups (n = 4). The intervention will be delivered for 6 months, after which, it will be administered to wait-list control practices. The intervention is multi-faceted and comprises provider-level components (training, audit and feedback, health care professional prompt, reimbursement) and patient-level components (GP-endorsed reminder with information leaflet delivered opportunistically face-to-face, and systematically by phone and letter). Patient inclusion criteria are type 1 or type 2 diabetes and DRS programme non-attendance. A multi-method approach will be used to determine screening uptake, evaluate the trial and study procedures and examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention from staff and patient perspectives. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected on intervention uptake and delivery, research processes and outcomes. Data will be collected at the practice, health professional and patient level. A partial economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the cost of delivering the implementation intervention in general practice. Formal continuation criteria will be used to determine whether IDEAs should progress to a definitive trial.DiscussionFindings will determine whether IDEAsis feasible and acceptable and will be used to refine the intervention and study procedures. A definitive trial will determine whether IDEAs is a cost-effective intervention to improve DRS uptake and reduce diabetes-related blindness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901898. Registered 3rd April 2019.
| S-EPMC7216495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a common microvascular complication of long-standing diabetes mellitus (DM). DR screening is a cost-effective intervention for preventing blindness from DR. We conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the uptake and the predictors of uptake of annual DR screening in an opportunistic DR screening programme at a secondary-level diabetes clinic in Southern Malawi. Consecutive patients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to record their demographic characteristics, medical details and data regarding; the frequency of clinic visits, knowledge of existence of DR screening services and a history of referral for DR screening in the prior one year. Univariate binary logistic regression was used to investigate predictors of DR screening uptake over the prior one year. Explanatory variables that had a P-value of < 0.1 were included into a multivariate logistic regression model. All variables that had a p-value of <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. We recruited 230 participants over three months with a median age of 52.5 years (IQR 18-84) and a median duration of diabetes of 4 years (IQR 1-7). The average interval of clinic visits was 1.2 months (SD ± 0.43) and only 59.1% (n = 139) of the participants were aware of the existence of diabetic retinopathy screening services at the facility. The uptake for DR screening over one year was 20% (n = 46). The strongest predictors of uptake on univariate analysis were awareness of the existence of DR screening services (OR 10.05, P <0.001) and a history of being referred for DR screening (OR 9.02, P <0.001) and these remained significant on multivariable analysis. Interventions to improve uptake for DR screening should promote referral of patients for DR screening and strengthen knowledge about the need and availability of DR screening services.
| S-EPMC10631633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Internationally, systematic screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) usually includes annual recall. Researchers and policy-makers support extending screening intervals, citing evidence from observational studies with low incidence rates. However, there is little research around the acceptability to people with diabetes (PWD) and health care professionals (HCP) about changing eye screening intervals. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study to explore issues surrounding acceptability and the barriers and enablers for changing from annual screening, using in-depth, semistructured interviews analysed using the constant comparative method. PWD were recruited from general practices and HCP from eye screening networks and related specialties in North West England using purposive sampling. Interviews were conducted prior to the commencement of and during a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing fixed annual with variable (6, 12 or 24?month) interval risk-based screening. RESULTS:Thirty PWD and 21 HCP participants were interviewed prior to and 30 PWD during the parallel RCT. The data suggests that a move to variable screening intervals was generally acceptable in principle, though highlighted significant concerns and challenges to successful implementation. The current annual interval was recognised as unsustainable against a backdrop of increasing diabetes prevalence. There were important caveats attached to acceptability and a need for clear safeguards around: the safety and reliability of calculating screening intervals, capturing all PWD, referral into screening of PWD with diabetic changes regardless of planned interval. For PWD the 6-month interval was perceived positively as medical reassurance, and the 12-month seen as usual treatment. Concerns were expressed by many HCP and PWD that a 2-year interval was too lengthy and was risky for detecting STDR. There were also concerns about a negative effect upon PWD care and increasing non-attendance rates. Amongst PWD, there was considerable conflation and misunderstanding about different eye-related appointments within the health care system. CONCLUSIONS:Implementing variable-interval screening into clinical practice is generally acceptable to PWD and HCP with important caveats, and misconceptions must be addressed. Clear safeguards against increasing non-attendance, loss of diabetes control and alternative referral pathways are required. For risk calculation systems to be safe, reliable monitoring and clear communication is required.
| S-EPMC7278114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: To describe barriers to implementation of diabetic retinopathy (DR) teleretinal screening programs and artificial intelligence (AI) integration at the University of California (UC). Methods: Institutional representatives from UC Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Irvine, and Davis were surveyed for the year of their program's initiation, active status at the time of survey (December 2021), number of primary care clinics involved, screening image quality, types of eye providers, image interpretation turnaround time, and billing codes used. Representatives were asked to rate perceptions toward barriers to teleretinal DR screening and AI implementation using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Four UC campuses had active DR teleretinal screening programs at the time of survey and screened between 246 and 2,123 patients at 1-6 clinics per campus. Sites reported variation between poor-quality photos (<5% to 15%) and average image interpretation time (1-5 days). Patient education, resource availability, and infrastructural support were identified as barriers to DR teleretinal screening. Cost and integration into existing technology infrastructures were identified as barriers to AI integration in DR screening. Conclusions: Despite the potential to increase access to care, there remain several barriers to widespread implementation of DR teleretinal screening. More research is needed to develop best practices to overcome these barriers.
| S-EPMC10714257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/hypothesisThe aim of our study was to identify subgroups of patients attending the Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Screening (DRS) programme who might safely move from annual to two yearly retinopathy screening.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of screening data from the DRS programme collected between 2005 and 2011 for people aged ≥12 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Scotland. We used hidden Markov models to calculate the probabilities of transitions to referable diabetic retinopathy (referable background or proliferative retinopathy) or referable maculopathy.ResultsThe study included 155,114 individuals with no referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy at their first DRS examination and with one or more further DRS examinations. There were 11,275 incident cases of referable diabetic eye disease (9,204 referable maculopathy, 2,071 referable background or proliferative retinopathy). The observed transitions to referable background or proliferative retinopathy were lower for people with no visible retinopathy vs mild background retinopathy at their prior examination (respectively, 1.2% vs 8.1% for type 1 diabetes and 0.6% vs 5.1% for type 2 diabetes). The lowest probability for transitioning to referable background or proliferative retinopathy was among people with two consecutive screens showing no visible retinopathy, where the probability was <0.3% for type 1 and <0.2% for type 2 diabetes at 2 years.Conclusions/interpretationTransition rates to referable diabetic eye disease were lowest among people with type 2 diabetes and two consecutive screens showing no visible retinopathy. If such people had been offered two yearly screening the DRS service would have needed to screen 40% fewer people in 2009.
| S-EPMC3699707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) uptake is suboptimal in many countries with limited evidence available on interventions to enhance DRS uptake in primary care. We investigated the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve uptake of Ireland's national DRS programme, Diabetic RetinaScreen, among patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.Design/settingWe conducted a cluster randomised pilot trial, embedded process evaluation and cost analysis in general practice, July 2019 to January 2020.ParticipantsEight practices participated in the trial. For the process evaluation, surveys were conducted with 25 staff at intervention practices. Interviews were conducted with nine staff at intervention practices, and 10 patients who received the intervention.InterventionsThe intervention comprised practice reimbursement, an audit of attendance, electronic prompts targeting professionals, General Practice-endorsed patient reminders and a patient information leaflet. Practices were randomly allocated to intervention (n=4) or wait-list control (n=4) (usual care).OutcomesStaff and patient interviews explored their perspectives on the intervention. Patient registration and attendance, including intention to attend, were measured at baseline and 6 months. Microcosting was used to estimate intervention delivery cost.ResultsThe process evaluation identified that enablers of feasibility included practice culture and capacity to protect time, systems to organise care, and staff skills, and workarounds to improve intervention 'fit'. At 6 months, 22/71 (31%) of baseline non-attenders in intervention practices subsequently attended screening compared with 15/87 (17%) in control practices. The total delivery cost across intervention practices (patients=363) was €2509, averaging €627 per practice and €6.91 per audited patient. Continuation criteria supported proceeding to a definitive trial.ConclusionsThe Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance intervention is feasible in primary care; however, consideration should be given to how best to facilitate local tailoring. A definitive trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness is required with preliminary results suggesting a positive effect on uptake.Trial registration numberNCT03901898.
| S-EPMC8527153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Kilimanjaro Diabetic Programme used the Intervention Mapping framework to develop a theory- and evidence-based diabetic retinopathy screening programme. A Working Committee of health care workers and stakeholders ensured community engagement and empowerment of the target audience.ObjectivesTo deliver a culturally appropriate, sustainable, community supported health intervention, promoting eye health behaviour change, to prevent avoidable blindness.MethodsThe six steps of the Intervention Mapping protocol incorporated eight components: (1) a needs assessment of people with diabetes and health care workers (2) a clinical trial of diabetic retinopathy screening modes, (3) comic strips as a motivational strategy for diabetic retinopathy screening uptake, (4) health care worker education (5) an electronic database of people with diabetes (6) a self-carry diary (7) implementation of mobile diabetic retinopathy retinal screening (8) process and outcome programme evaluation.ResultsThe programme eliminated barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening in Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre eye and diabetic clinics, placing a digital retinal screening camera in the diabetic clinic and a fast-track screening system in the eye clinic. Two comic strips and a diary provided information about self-management and record of medications, treatment, blood sugar and blood pressure at clinic visits. An annual rural health care worker education programme met requests for knowledge on treatment and care of diabetes, targeting prevention of diabetic retinopathy. Rural digital retinal screening was implemented. Rural diabetes clinics were initiated.ConclusionsIntervention Mapping provided a systematic, iterative model to formulate and deliver an urban and rural diabetic retinopathy screening programme.Trial registration numberISRCTN31439939. Details available at https://www.isrctn.com/.
| S-EPMC9159027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAppropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. Several high-quality systematic reviews and practice guidelines exist to inform the most effective screening options. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. We developed an implementation guideline to answer the question: What interventions have been shown to increase the uptake of cancer screening by individuals, specifically for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers?MethodsA guideline panel was established as part of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care, and a systematic review of the published literature was conducted. It yielded three foundational systematic reviews and an existing guidance document. We conducted updates of these reviews and searched the literature published between 2004 and 2010. A draft guideline was written that went through two rounds of review. Revisions were made resulting in a final set of guideline recommendations.ResultsSixty-six new studies reflecting 74 comparisons met eligibility criteria. They were generally of poor to moderate quality. Using these and the foundational documents, the panel developed a draft guideline. The draft report was well received in the two rounds of review with mean quality scores above four (on a five-point scale) for each of the items. For most of the interventions considered, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute their effectiveness. However, client reminders, reduction of structural barriers, and provision of provider assessment and feedback were recommended interventions to increase screening for at least two of three cancer sites studied. The final guidelines also provide advice on how the recommendations can be used and future areas for research.ConclusionUsing established guideline development methodologies and the AGREE II as our methodological frameworks, we developed an implementation guideline to advise on interventions to increase the rate of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. While advancements have been made in these areas of implementation science, more investigations are warranted.
| S-EPMC3222606 | biostudies-literature