Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Orton, E.; Forbes-Haley, A.; Tunbridge, L.; Cohen, S. (2013)
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Public Health
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Objectives\ud At the time of undertaking the audit, the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening in Derbyshire was 73%, below the national standard of 80%. To assess equity of access to diabetic retinopathy screening in a geographically and ethnically diverse population and determine predictors for poor uptake that will inform service improvements.\ud \ud Study design\ud Mixed methods health equity audit.\ud \ud Methods\ud Postal questionnaires were issued to 1000 people invited for diabetic retinopathy screening in May 2010 and telephone interviews were conducted with subsample of 32 people who had not made a screening appointment. Routine data from the screening programme was used to identify characteristics of people who did not respond to screening invitation. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using multivariate methods were calculated in this study.\ud \ud Results\ud The response rate to the postal questionnaire was 43%. Of these, 28% of respondents did not recall discussing the importance of diabetic retinopathy screening with their primary care team and 11% of people did not understand the term ‘diabetic retinopathy’. Non-uptake of screening was associated with deprivation (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10–1.29 for those living in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived) and young people were over three times more likely not to participate than older people (OR 3.13, 95% CI 2.70–3.64 for men under 40 compared to men over 80 and OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.54–5.98 for people with type 1 diabetes under 40 compared to those over 80).\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Ensuring that primary care and other health care and third sector organisations convey the importance of diabetic retinopathy screening with patients and improving patients' understanding of the screening programme may improve uptake. Interventions to increase uptake should be targeted to younger people, especially those with type 1 diabetes and people living in more deprived areas.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Woodman J, Brandon M, Bailey S, Belderson P, Sidebotham P, Gilbert R. Healthcare use by children fatally or seriously harmed by child maltreatment: analysis of a national case series. Arch Dis Child 2005e2007;96(3):270e5.
    • 2. Bunce C, Wormald R. Leading causes of certification for blindness and partial sight in England & Wales. BMC Public Health 2006;6:58.
    • 3. Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Davis MD, DeMets DL. The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. II. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is less than 30 years. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102(4):520e6.
    • 4. Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Davis MD, DeMets DL. The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. III. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is 30 or more years. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102(4):527e32.
    • 5. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;128(3):324e30.
    • 6. Fenwick EK, Pesudovs K, Khadka J, Dirani M, Rees G, Wong TY, Lamoureux EL. The impact of diabetic retinopathy on quality of life: qualitative findings from an item bank development project. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Aspects Treat Care Rehabil; 2012.
    • 7. Devenney R, O'Neill S. The experience of diabetic retinopathy: a qualitative study. Br J Health Psychol 2011;16(4):707e21.
    • 8. Joshi SM, Demetriades A, Vasani SS, Ellamushi H, Yeh J. Tension pneumocephalus following head injury. Emerg Med J 2006;23(4):324.
    • 9. Rohan TE, Frost CD, Wald NJ. Prevention of blindness by screening for diabetic retinopathy: a quantitative assessment. BMJ 1989;299(6709):1198e201.
    • 10. Javitt JC. Cost savings associated with detection and treatment of diabetic eye disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;8(Suppl. 1):33e9.
    • 11. Sharp1 PF, Olson J, Strachan F, Hipwell J, Ludbrook A, O'Donnell M, Wallace S, Goatman K, Grant A, Waugh N, McHardy K, Forrester JV. The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(30):1e119.
    • 12. NSC. In: Committee UNS, editor. Policy position on diabetic retinopathy screening in adults; 2005.
    • 13. Joshi A, Nagare U. A novel system for the irrigation of open fractures [Karuppasamy, et al. Injury 2004;35:980e1]. Injury 2005;36(9):1143 [author reply 43e4].
    • 14. Lyons RA, Kendrick D, Towner EM, Christie N, Macey S, Coupland C, Gabbe BJ; UK Burden of Injuries Study Group. Measuring the population burden of injurieseimplications for global and national estimates: a multi-centre prospective UK longitudinal study. PLoS Med;8(12):e1001140.
    • 15. Department of Health. Confirmation of Payment by Results (PbR) arrangements for 2011e12; 2011.
    • 16. Reading R, Langford IH, Haynes R, Lovett A. Accidents to preschool children: comparing family and neighbourhood risk factors. Soc Sci Med 1999;48(3):321e30.
    • 17. HPA. Health Protection Agency STI annual data; 2010.
    • 18. Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2003.
    • 19. Dervan E, Lillis D, Flynn L, Staines A, O'Shea D. Factors that influence the patient uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening. Ir J Med Sci 2008;177(4):303e8.
    • 20. Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Sowden A, Kleijnen J. The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(14):ievii. 1e133.
    • 21. Scanlon PH, Carter SC, Foy C, Husband RF, Abbas J, Bachmann MO. Diabetic retinopathy and socioeconomic deprivation in Gloucestershire. J Med Screen 2008;15(3):118e21.
    • 22. Leese GP, Boyle P, Feng Z, Emslie-Smith A, Ellis JD. Screening uptake in a well-established diabetic retinopathy screening program: the role of geographical access and deprivation. Diabetes Care 2008;31(11):2131e5.
    • 23. Moss SM, Campbell C, Melia J, Coleman D, Smith S, Parker R, Ramsell P, Patnick J, Weller DP. Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot. Gut.
    • 24. von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W, Obichere A, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, Smith S, Halloran S, Wardle J. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol.
    • 25. Johns LE, Moss SM. Randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ('Age' trial): patterns of screening attendance. J Med Screen;17(1):37e43.
    • 26. Renshaw C, Jack RH, Dixon S, Moller H, Davies EA. Estimating attendance for breast cancer screening in ethnic groups in London. BMC Public Health;10:157.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article