ArticleBMC health services research2022
Telescreening satisfaction: disparities between individuals with diabetic retinopathy and community health center staff.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-based interventions to detect visual impairment in community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 75 years: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Ultrasound-guided caudal anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe success of telescreening and the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in communities depends on stakeholder satisfaction, including both individuals with diabetes and community health center (CHC) staff. In this study, we investigated the satisfaction of both individuals with vision-threatening DR (VTDR) and CHC staff within the Shanghai Eye Disease Study (SEDS) comprehensive system for managing diabetic eye diseases at the primary care level.
methodsThe cross-sectional survey of patients receiving the service included 3,817 respondents with VTDR and focused on their satisfaction with the SEDS system, including the telescreening process, speed of feedback, interpretation of results, increased awareness of related diseases, and eye care services. The survey of the providers included 234 CHC staff respondents and focused on their satisfaction and the main barriers encountered during the implementation of the system. Sociodemographic characteristics and perceived barriers related to satisfaction were identified by conducting univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
resultsThe overall satisfaction of service recipients was 96.0%, and 75.8% of them were willing to undergo future telescreening for DR. The convenience of telescreening, organization of telescreening, and improvement in related disease awareness significantly correlated with satisfaction. Only 48.3% of the providers were satisfied with the SEDS system. The most frequently mentioned barriers to the development of the system were the inadequate levels of staffing (particularly technical staff), insufficient funding, and incomplete information transmission systems.
conclusionsDisparities between high patient satisfaction and low provider satisfaction with the SEDS system were mainly related to the current weak level of ophthalmic expertise in the CHCs and the low awareness of screening for diabetic eye diseases among both patients and providers.
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.