ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
A narrative review of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals toward diabetic retinopathy.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowledge and Awareness of Diabetic Retinopathy Among Patients Undergoing Fundus (Retina) Photography Screening at Primary Healthcare Centers in Bahrain.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of preventable vision loss worldwide. Early screening and diagnosis are critical in mitigating vision loss in patients with diabetes. This review aims to analyze existing research on healthcare professionals' (HCPs) knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding DR screening. Methods: A literature search was performed using four electronic databases: Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and EBSCOhost. The search terms included synonyms connected by the Boolean operator "OR." This search covered quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research studies. The appraisal was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical tool. A total of 59 published articles were analyzed. Results: Forty-seven articles (79.7%) assessed knowledge of HCPs, 30 (50.8%) assessed attitudes, and 42 (71.2%) assessed practices related to DR screening and referrals. The studies reveal significant differences in knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding DR among various HCPs. There was variation in levels of knowledge amongst various categories of HCPs, with nine studies reporting 100% knowledge of DR. Positive attitudes ranged from 13 to 100%. Similar variations were reported regarding practices, with many HCPs not screening patients for DR. Inadequate training, lack of screening resources like an ophthalmoscope, dilating eye drops, and being inundated with other responsibilities were common reasons for the gaps in knowledge and practices. Conclusion: Non-ophthalmic HCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding DR screening were unsatisfactory. The HCPs with an ophthalmic background had varying levels of KAP regarding DR, with some having good knowledge and others having deficiencies in applying screening guidelines and providing patient education. Regular in-service training is needed, particularly for non-ophthalmic HCPs, and resources should be available for screening at the primary care level.
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.