ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Interrogating a framework for diabetic retinopathy screening adherence: Qualitative insights from a severely affected and under-adherent population.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To validate and expand upon a framework of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening adherence by examining barriers and facilitators among individuals with severe DR and those under-adherent to screening. From March 2021 to February 2022, we conducted eight remote semi-structured interviews with adults with diabetes across two participant populations: (1) participants with severe DR who had undergone procedures (n = 4) and (2) participants under-adherent to screening, defined as no eye exam in >1 year (n = 4). We recruited participants from the Yale Eye Center and community referrals. During the interviews, we collected demographic data and presented participants with a DR screening adherence framework previously developed by our group. We transcribed all interviews and conducted analyses using a hybrid deductive-inductive analytic approach informed by grounded theory techniques to identify recurring themes. Themes across both participant populations aligned with the existing framework, including vision status, emotional context, competing concerns, resource availability, cues to action, knowledge-creating experiences, and in-clinic experiences. The patient-doctor relationship emerged as a sub-theme of in-clinic experiences, highlighting the role of trust and communication in supporting sustained eye care engagement. At the individual level, participants with stable vision often perceived no need for screening. At the institutional and structural level, participants identified lack of insurance and transportation as significant barriers. These findings support the robustness of the DR screening adherence framework across varying levels of disease severity and engagement. Interventions that improve patient education, address structural barriers, and strengthen patient-doctor relationships may enhance screening adherence among populations at high risk for vision loss.
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.