Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33062395›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020

Validation of a New Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes Questionnaire in People with Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema.

Eva K Fenwick, Ryan E K Man, Alfred T L Gan, Amudha Aravindhan, Ching Siong Tey, Hasita Jian Tai Soon, Daniel S W Ting, San I Y Yeo, Shu Yen Lee, Gavin Tan and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in diabetic retinal disease.Journal of diabetes and its complications · 2023
    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

12 authors.

Eva K FenwickSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ryan E K ManSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Alfred T L GanSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Amudha AravindhanSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ching Siong TeySingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Hasita Jian Tai SoonSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Daniel S W TingSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
San I Y YeoSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Shu Yen LeeSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Gavin TanSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Tien Y WongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ecosse L LamoureuxSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: A validated questionnaire assessing diabetic retinopathy (DR)- and diabetic macular edema (DME)-related knowledge (K) and attitudes (A) is lacking. We developed and validated the Diabetic Retinopathy Knowledge and Attitudes (DRKA) questionnaire and explored the association between K and A and the self-reported difficulty accessing DR-related information (hereafter referred to as Access). Methods: In this mixed-methods study, eight focus groups with 36 people with DR or DME (mean age, 60.1 ± 8.0 years; 53% male) were conducted to develop content (phase 1). In phase 2, we conducted 10 cognitive interviews to refine item phrasing. In phase 3, we administered 28-item K and nine-item A pilot questionnaires to 200 purposively recruited DR/DME patients (mean age, 59.0 ± 10.6 years; 59% male). The psychometric properties of DRKA were assessed using Rasch and classical methods. The association between K and A and DR-related Access was assessed using univariable linear regression of mean K/A scores against Access. Results: Following Rasch-guided amendments, the final 22-item K and nine-item A scales demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, although precision remained borderline. The scales displayed excellent discriminant validity, with K/A scores increasing as education level increased. Compared to those with low scores, those with high K/A scores were more likely to report better access to DR-related information, with K scores of 0.99 ± 0.86 for no difficulty; 0.79 ± 1.05 for a little difficulty; and 0.24 ± 0.85 for moderate or worse difficulty ( Conclusions: The psychometrically robust 31-item DRKA questionnaire can measure DR- and DME-related knowledge and attitudes. Translational Relevance: The DRKA questionnaire may be useful for interventions to improve DR-related knowledge and attitudes and, in turn, optimize health behaviors and health literacy.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyMacular EdemaAgedAttitudeCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesattitudes and practicediabetic macular edemadiabetic retinopathyknowledgeRasch analysis

Identifiers

PMID33062395
PMCPMC7533728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.