ArticleTropical medicine and health2020
Peer-support to increase uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy: process evaluation of the DURE cluster randomized trial.
Article in Tropical medicine and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peer Support in Chronic Conditions from the Peer Supporters' Perspective: A Systematic Review.Psychosocial intervention · 2025Pooled it
- Health education improves referral compliance of persons with probable Diabetic Retinopathy: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Inclusion of diabetic retinopathy screening strategies in national-level diabetes care planning in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Integrated people-centered eye care: A scoping review on engaging communities in eye care in low- and middle-income settings.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Peer support and social networking interventions in diabetes self-management in Kenya and Uganda: A scoping review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Evaluation of multi-level barriers and facilitators in a large diabetic retinopathy screening program in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative study.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- The impact of combined age-related vision loss and dementia on the participation of older adults: A scoping review.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence on how implementation of peer support interventions influences effectiveness, particularly for individuals with diabetes. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of a peer-led health education package versus usual care to increase uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR).
methodsOur process evaluation used a mixed-method design to investigate the recruitment and retention, reach, dose, fidelity, acceptability, and context of implementation, and was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We reviewed trial documents, conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (
resultsThe trial had positive implementation outcomes, 100% retention of clusters and 96% retention for participants, 83% adherence to delivery of content of group talks (fidelity), and 78% attendance (reach) to at least 50% (3/6) of the group talks (dose). The data revealed that intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics, and process (all the constructs of CFIR) influenced the implementation. There were more facilitators than barriers to the implementation. Facilitators included the relative advantage of the intervention compared with current practice (intervention characteristics); awareness of the growing prioritization of diabetes in the national health policy framework (outer setting); tension for change due to the realization of the vulnerability to vision loss from DR (inner setting); a strong collective sense of accountability of peer supporters to implement the intervention (individual characteristics); and regular feedback on the progress with implementation (process). Potential barriers included the need to queue at the eye clinic (intervention characteristic), travel inconveniences (inner setting), and socio-political disruption (outer setting).
conclusionsThe intervention was implemented with high retention, reach, fidelity, and dose. The CFIR provided a valuable framework for evaluating contextual factors that influenced implementation and helped to understand what adaptations may be needed during scale up.
trial registrationPan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR201707002430195 registered 15 July 2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.