Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31937730›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020

Effectiveness of health education and monetary incentive on uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening at a community health center in South Gujarat, India.

Rohan Arvindbhai Chariwala, Rajan Shukla, Uday R Gajiwala, Clare Gilbert, Hira Pant, Melissa Glenda Lewis, G V S Murthy

Open access · diamondAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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 2 countries.

Rohan Arvindbhai ChariwalaDivyajyoti Trust, Tejas Eye Hospital, Mandvi, District-Surat, Gujarat, India.
Rajan ShuklaSouth Asia Centre for Disability Inclusive Development Research, Indian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Uday R GajiwalaDivyajyoti Trust, Tejas Eye Hospital, Mandvi, District-Surat, Gujarat, India.
Clare GilbertDepartment of Clinical Research, International Centre for Eye Health, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Hira PantSouth Asia Centre for Disability Inclusive Development Research, Indian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Melissa Glenda LewisSouth Asia Centre for Disability Inclusive Development Research, Indian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
G V S MurthySouth Asia Centre for Disability Inclusive Development Research, Indian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Hyderabad, Telangana, India; Department of Clinical Research, International Centre for Eye Health, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Institute of Public Health · INLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPublic Health Foundation of India · INChristie's · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The effectiveness of Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) with and without monetary incentive in uptake of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening at community health center (CHC) was compared in South Gujarat, India. Methods: In this non-randomized controlled trial, ASHAs were incentivized to refer people with diabetes mellitus (PwDM) from their respective villages for DR screening after people were sensitized to DM and DR. The minimum sample size was 63 people in each arm. Results: Of 162, 50.6% were females, 80.2% were literate, 56.2% were >50 years, 54.3% had increased random blood sugar (RBS), and 59.9% had diabetes for 5 years. The percentage of screening was significantly higher [relative risk (RR) = 4.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79, 6.84] in ASHA incentive group and health education (HE) group (RR = 3.67, 95% CI 2.35, 5.75) compared with baseline. Providing incentive to ASHAs was not found to be of extra advantage (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.89, 1.57). The likelihood of uptake of screening was higher among uncontrolled PwDM, poor literacy, and higher duration of diabetes in incentive phase (P < 0.001) compared with HE. The results show that age (P = 0.017), education (P = 0.015) and level of RBS (P = 0.001) of those referred were significantly associated with incentives to ASHAs. Conclusion: ASHAs can be used effectively to refer known PwDM for DR screening especially when DR screening program is introduced in population with low awareness and poor accessibility. When incentives are planned, additional burden on resources should be kept in mind before adapting this model of care.

Indexed as

Community Health CentersHealth EducationReferral and ConsultationRural Health ServicesDiabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansIncidenceIndiaMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsAccredited Social Health activist (ASHA)diabetic retinopathyhealth educationincentiveIndiascreening

Identifiers

PMID31937730
PMCPMC7001183
OpenAlexW2999672538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.