Barriers to Eye Care Among People Aged 40 Years and Older With Diagnosed Diabetes, 2006-2010

Bloomberg School of Public Health School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD (Sherrod).
Diabetes care (Impact Factor: 7.74). 09/2013; 37(1). DOI: 10.2337/dc13-1507
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective
To examine barriers to receiving recommended eye care among people aged ≥40 years with diagnosed diabetes.Method
We analyzed 2006-2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 22 states (n=27,699). Respondents who had not sought eye care in the preceding 12 months were asked the main reason why. We categorized the reasons as cost/lack of insurance, no need, no eye doctor/travel/appointment, and other (meaning everything else). We used multinomial logistic regression to control for race/ethnicity, education, income, and other selected covariates.ResultsAmong adults with diagnosed diabetes, non-adherence to the recommended annual eye examinations was 23.5%. The most commonly reported reasons for not receiving eye care in the preceding 12 months were "no need" and "cost or lack of insurance" (39.7% and 32.3% respectively). Other reasons were no eye doctor, no transportation or could not get appointment" (6.4%), and "other" (21.5%). After controlling for covariates, adults aged 40-64 were more likely than those aged ≥65 years (relative risk ratios [RRR]=2.79; 95% CI =2.01, 3.89) and women were more likely than men (RRR=2.33; 95% CI=1.75, 3.14) to report "cost or lack of insurance" as their main reason. However, people aged 40-64 were less likely than those aged ≥65 years to report "no need" (RRR=0.51; 95% CI=0.39, 0.67) as their main reason.Conclusion
Addressing concerns about "cost or lack of insurance" for adults under 65 years and "no perceived need" among those 65 years and older could help improve eye care service utilization among people with diabetes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, dilated eye examination guideline compliance among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), but without diabetic retinopathy. Utilizing the computerized billing records database, we identified patients with International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnoses of DM, but without any ocular diagnoses. The available medical records of patients in 2007-2008 were reviewed for demographic and ocular information, including visits through 2010 (n=200). Patients were considered guideline compliant if they returned at least every 15 months for screening. Participant street addresses were assigned latitude and longitude coordinates to assess their neighborhood socioeconomic status (using the 2000 US census data), distance to the screening facility, and public transportation access. Patients not compliant, based on the medical record review, were contacted by phone or mail and asked to complete a follow-up survey to determine if screening took place at other locations. The overall screening compliance rate was 31%. Patient sociodemographic characteristics, insurance status, and neighborhood socioeconomic measures were not significantly associated with compliance. However, in separate multivariable logistic regression models, those living eight or more miles from the screening facility were significantly less likely to be compliant relative to those living within eight miles (OR=0.36 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.86)), while public transit access quality was positively associated with screening compliance (1.34 (1.07 to 1.68)). Less than one-third of patients returned for diabetic retinopathy screening at least every 15 months, with transportation challenges associated with noncompliance. Our results suggest that reducing transportation barriers or utilizing community-based screening strategies may improve compliance.
    06/2014; in press. DOI:10.1136/bmjdrc-2014-000031