Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25510885›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Attitudes, access and anguish: a qualitative interview study of staff and patients' experiences of diabetic retinopathy screening.

A E Hipwell, J Sturt, A Lindenmeyer, I Stratton, R Gadsby, P O'Hare, P H Scanlon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exploring Whether and How People Experiencing High Deprivation Access Diagnostic Services: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review on Patients' Non-Attendance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A E HipwellCLAHRC-WM, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
J SturtFlorence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
A LindenmeyerDepartment of Primary Care Clinical Sciences, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
I StrattonGloucester Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group, Cheltenham General Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
R GadsbyWarwick Medical School Education & Development, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
P O'HareDivision of Metabolic & Vascular Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
P H ScanlonDiabetic Retinopathy Screening Programme (England), Gloucestershire Eye Unit and Oxford Eye Hospital, Cheltenham General Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
University of Warwick · GBCheltenham General Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-1208-18043Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the experiences of patients, health professionals and screeners; their interactions with and understandings of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS); and how these influence uptake.

designPurposive, qualitative design using multiperspectival, semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.

settingThree UK Screening Programme regions with different service-delivery modes, minority ethnic and deprivation levels across rural, urban and inner-city areas, in general practitioner practices and patients' homes.

participants62 including 38 patients (22 regular-screening attenders, 16 non-regular attenders) and 24 professionals (15 primary care professionals and 9 screeners).

resultsAntecedents to attendance included knowledge about diabetic retinopathy and screening; antecedents to non-attendance included psychological, pragmatic and social factors. Confusion between photographs taken at routine eye tests and DRS photographs was identified. The differing regional invitation methods and screening locations were discussed, with convenience and transport safety being over-riding considerations for patients. Some patients mentioned significant pain and visual disturbance from mydriasis drops as a deterrent to attendance.

conclusionsIn this, the first study to consider multiperspectival experiential accounts, we identified that proactive coordination of care involving patients, primary care and screening programmes, prior to, during and after screening is required. Multiple factors, prior to, during and after screening, are involved in the attendance and non-attendance for DRS. Further research is needed to establish whether patient self-management educational interventions and the pharmacological reformulation of shorter acting mydriasis drops, may improve uptake of DRS. This might, in turn, reduce preventable vision loss and its associated costs to individuals and their families, and to health and social care providers, reducing current inequalities.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareStress, PsychologicalDiabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedMydriaticsPainPhotographyPrimary Health CareMydriaticsPRIMARY CAREQUALITATIVE RESEARCHScreeningSOCIAL MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID25510885
PMCPMC4267079
OpenAlexW2150736691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 OpenQuestion graph.