Barriers and enablers to diabetic eye screening: a cross sectional survey of young adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance in young adults is consistently below recommended levels. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) attendance amongst young adults (YA) in the UK living with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes. Research design and methods YAs (18-34yrs) were invited to complete an anonymous online survey in June 2021 assessing agreement with 30 belief statements informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change (TDF) describing potential barriers/enablers to DRS. Results In total 102 responses were received. Most had T1D (65.7%) and were regular attenders for DRS (76.5%). The most salient TDF domains for DRS attendance w ere ‘Goals’ , with 93% agreeing that DRS was a high priority and ‘Knowledge’ , with 98% being aware that screening can detect eye problems early. Overall 67.4% indicated that they would like greater appointment flexibility [ Environmental context/resources ] and 31.3% reported difficulties getting time off work/study to attend appointments [ Environmental Context/Resources ]. This was more commonly reported by occasional non-attenders versus regular attenders (59.1% vs 23.4%, P=0.002) Most YAs were worried about diabetic retinopathy (74.3%), anxious when receiving screening results (63%) [ Emotion ] and would like more support after getting their results (66%) [ Social influences ]. Responses for T1D and T2D were broadly similar, although those with T2D were more likely have developed strategies to help them to remember their appointments (63.6% vs 37.9%, P=0.019) [ Behavioural regulation ]. Conclusions Attendance for DRS in YAs is influenced by complex interacting behavioural factors. Identifying modifiable determinants of behaviour will provide a basis for designing tailored interventions to improve DRS in YAs and prevent avoidable vision loss. Significance of this study What is already known about this subject? Younger adults (<35 years) with diabetes have been identified as having longer time intervals before attending initial diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) and are more likely to miss successive screening appointments. Previous studies have explored modifiable influences on DRS attendance, but often do not differentiate between population groups, particularly young adults. What are the new findings? One of the main reported barriers to attending DRS was the lack of appointment flexibility and difficulty getting time off work/study to attend appointments. This was compounded by the lack of integration of DRS with other diabetes appointments. Most young adults were worried about diabetic retinopathy, anxious when receiving screening results and would like more support How might these results change the focus of research or clinical practice? A more tailored approach is needed to support young adults to attend DRS. The findings of this research provide a basis for developing tailored interventions to increase screening uptake in this age group
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».