What is the aim of this review?
The aim of this review was to find out if interventions used to improve attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening are effective.
The results of this review found evidence that interventions that target patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are likely to be effective for improving attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening compared to usual care. We found benefits for interventions that were specifically aimed at diabetic retinopathy screening, as well as those which were part of a general strategy to improve diabetes care. This is important, since more general strategies are associated with additional benefits, such as improving blood glucose control and increasing the detection of other diabetes-related complications.
What was studied in the review?
People with diabetes may lose vision as a result of the damaging effects of the disease on small blood vessels at the back of the eye (diabetic retinopathy). Screening for diabetic retinopathy to detect and treat early signs can prevent sight loss. However, screening attendance is variable and sight-threatening changes may not be detected in good time.
This review looked at a variety of interventions to improve diabetic retinopathy screening.
What are the main results of the review?
The Cochrane review authors found 66 relevant studies. Forty-one studies were from the USA, 14 from Europe, three from Canada, three from Australia and five from elsewhere. Fifty-six studies compared the intervention to improve screening attendance with usual care and 10 compared a more intensive to a less intensive intervention.
We found that interventions aimed at patients or healthcare professionals or both, or at the healthcare system were effective at improving screening attendance. Interventions aimed at improving the general quality of diabetes care worked as well as those specifically aimed at improving screening for retinopathy. On average, attendance increased by 12% compared with no intervention.
How up-to-date is this review?
The Cochrane review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 13 February 2017.
The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.
Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.
The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Secondary objectives were:
To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;
To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;
To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;
To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.
We included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.
We coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.
Two review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.
We included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62%) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12% (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs ‘goal setting (outcome)’ (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and ‘feedback on outcomes of behaviour’ (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and ‘restructuring the social environment’ (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and ‘credible source’ (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.
Ten studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5% (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).
Fourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.
With the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8%) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.