Socio-economic and ethnic inequalities in diabetes retinal screening

Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, UK.
Diabetic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.06). 03/2010; 27(3):282-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.02946.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We aimed to quantify socio-economic and ethnic inequalities in diabetes retinal screening.
Data were analysed for the retinal screening programme for three South London boroughs for the 18-month period to February 2009. Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) was defined as the occurrence of diabetic maculopathy, severe non-proliferative or proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Odds ratios were adjusted for sex, age group, duration and type of diabetes, self-reported ethnicity and deprivation quintile by participant postal code.
There were 76 351 records obtained but, after excluding duplicate and ineligible records, data were analysed for 59 495 records from 31 484 subjects. There were 7026 (22%) subjects called for appointments who were not screened in the period, with 24 458 (78%) having one or more screening episodes. Non-attendance for screening was highest in young adults aged 18-34 years (32%) and in those aged 85 years or greater (28%). In the most deprived quintile, non-attendance was 23% compared with 21% in the least deprived quintile [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.61, P < 0.001]. There were 2819 (11.5%) participants with STDR, including 10.8% in the least deprived quintile and 12.2% in the most deprived quintile (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95-1.16, P = 0.196). Compared with white Europeans (9.4%), STDR was higher in Africans (15.2%) and African Caribbeans (14.7%), resulting from a higher frequency of diabetic maculopathy.
Socio-economic inequality in diabetes retinal screening may be smaller than reported in earlier studies. This study suggested an increased frequency of diabetic maculopathy among participants of African origins.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Despite the large body of research on racial/ethnic disparities in health, there are limited data on health disparities in Caribbean origin populations. This review aims to analyze and synthesize published literature on the disparities in diabetes mellitus (DM) and its complications among Afro-Caribbean populations. Methods A detailed protocol, including a comprehensive search strategy, was developed and used to identify potentially relevant studies. Identified studies were then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. An extraction form was developed to chart data and collate study characteristics including methods and main findings. Charted information was tagged by disparity indicators and thematic analysis performed. Disparity indicators evaluated include ethnicity, sex, age, socioeconomic status, disability and geographic location. Gaps in the literature were identified and extrapolated into a gap map. Results A total of 1009 diabetes related articles/manuscripts, published between 1972 and 2013, were identified and screened. Forty-three studies met inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. Most studies were conducted in the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, and used a cross-sectional study design. Overall, studies reported a higher prevalence of DM among Caribbean Blacks compared to West African Blacks and Caucasians but lower when compared to South Asian origin groups. Morbidity from diabetes-related complications was highest in persons with low socioeconomic status. Gap analysis showed limited research data reporting diabetes incidence by sex and socioeconomic status. No published literature was found on disability status or sexual orientation as it relates to diabetes burden or complications. Prevalence and morbidity were the most frequently reported outcomes. Conclusion Literature on diabetes health disparities in Caribbean origin populations is limited. Future research should address these knowledge gaps and develop approaches to reduce them.
    International Journal for Equity in Health 02/2015; 14:23. DOI:10.1186/s12939-015-0149-z · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine whether social deprivation is a risk factor for late presentation of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy and whether it affects their access to urgent laser treatment. Using a 2:1 case: control design, 102 patients referred to a UK teaching hospital as part of the UK Diabetic Retinopathy National Screening Programme were identified for the period between 1 June 2010 to 1 June 2013. Social deprivation was scored using the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010. Additional variables considered included age, duration of disease, ethnicity, and HbA1c at time of referral. The cases comprised 34 patients referred with proliferative (grade R3) retinopathy with a control group of 68 patients with lower retinopathy grades; two control patients were excluded due to incomplete data. On univariate analysis, R3 retinopathy was associated with higher social deprivation (P<0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test), and with higher HbA1c (11.5% vs 8.4%; P<0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test). Forward stepwise multivariable analysis showed that the association of R3 retinopathy with deprivation was significant even after adjusting for HbA1c (P=0.016). On univariate analysis South Asian ethnicity was also identified as being a risk factor for presentation with R3 retinopathy, but this was no longer significant when HbA1c was adjusted for in a forward stepwise logistic regression analysis. In our cohort social deprivation appears to be associated with late presentation of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Our study supports the need to target these groups to reduce preventable blindness and to identify strategies which overcome barriers to care.
    Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 02/2015; 9:347-52. DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S73272
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the experiences of patients, health professionals and screeners; their interactions with and understandings of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS); and how these influence uptake. Purposive, qualitative design using multiperspectival, semistructured interviews and thematic analysis. Three UK Screening Programme regions with different service-delivery modes, minority ethnic and deprivation levels across rural, urban and inner-city areas, in general practitioner practices and patients' homes. 62 including 38 patients (22 regular-screening attenders, 16 non-regular attenders) and 24 professionals (15 primary care professionals and 9 screeners). Antecedents to attendance included knowledge about diabetic retinopathy and screening; antecedents to non-attendance included psychological, pragmatic and social factors. Confusion between photographs taken at routine eye tests and DRS photographs was identified. The differing regional invitation methods and screening locations were discussed, with convenience and transport safety being over-riding considerations for patients. Some patients mentioned significant pain and visual disturbance from mydriasis drops as a deterrent to attendance. In this, the first study to consider multiperspectival experiential accounts, we identified that proactive coordination of care involving patients, primary care and screening programmes, prior to, during and after screening is required. Multiple factors, prior to, during and after screening, are involved in the attendance and non-attendance for DRS. Further research is needed to establish whether patient self-management educational interventions and the pharmacological reformulation of shorter acting mydriasis drops, may improve uptake of DRS. This might, in turn, reduce preventable vision loss and its associated costs to individuals and their families, and to health and social care providers, reducing current inequalities. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to
    BMJ Open 12/2014; 4(12):e005498. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005498 · 2.06 Impact Factor