BACKGROUND: Participation in diabetic retinopathy screening is suboptimal. The Vision is Precious study (2001-2005) tested the hypothesis that a tailored telephone intervention in urban minority diabetes populations, offered in English or Spanish, would result in greater screening for retinopathy than a standard print intervention. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Subjects (N=598) were adults with diabetes without a dilated fundus examination (DFE) in >1 year from three healthcare centers in Bronx NY. INTERVENTION: A tailored telephone intervention to promote retinopathy screening compared to a standard print intervention over a 6-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Documentation of a DFE within 6 months was the main outcome. Data on risk perceptions using the Risk Perception Survey for Diabetes were collected pre- and post-intervention. Electronic databases were used to obtain hemoglobin A1c information. RESULTS: Subjects were 40% men, mean age 57 years; 39% reported household incomes as <$15K; 45% reported their race as black, and 42% reported ethnicity as Hispanic/Latino; 23% chose Spanish as their preferred language. Data were analyzed in 2006. There was a 74% increase in retinopathy screening in the telephone versus print group (p<0.0005), with no differences by intervention language or by gender. Predictors of undergoing a DFE included: telephone intervention, baseline risk-perception scores indicating less worry and more realism about diabetes complications, and the interaction of self-reported worry and being in the telephone intervention. Subjects who had poor diabetes control responded with greater success to telephone interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A limited telephone intervention can improve significantly participation in retinopathy screening in a minority, low-income population. This intervention influenced risk perceptions about diabetes complications. Further research is needed to develop effective risk communications to prevent the complications of diabetes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Participation in diabetic retinopathy screening is suboptimal. The Vision is Precious study (2001-2005) tested the hypothesis that a tailored telephone intervention in urban minority diabetes populations, offered in English or Spanish, would result in greater screening for retinopathy than a standard print intervention. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Subjects (N=598) were adults with diabetes without a dilated fundus examination (DFE) in >1 year from three healthcare centers in Bronx NY. INTERVENTION: A tailored telephone intervention to promote retinopathy screening compared to a standard print intervention over a 6-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Documentation of a DFE within 6 months was the main outcome. Data on risk perceptions using the Risk Perception Survey for Diabetes were collected pre- and post-intervention. Electronic databases were used to obtain hemoglobin A1c information. RESULTS: Subjects were 40% men, mean age 57 years; 39% reported household incomes as <$15K; 45% reported their race as black, and 42% reported ethnicity as Hispanic/Latino; 23% chose Spanish as their preferred language. Data were analyzed in 2006. There was a 74% increase in retinopathy screening in the telephone versus print group (p<0.0005), with no differences by intervention language or by gender. Predictors of undergoing a DFE included: telephone intervention, baseline risk-perception scores indicating less worry and more realism about diabetes complications, and the interaction of self-reported worry and being in the telephone intervention. Subjects who had poor diabetes control responded with greater success to telephone interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A limited telephone intervention can improve significantly participation in retinopathy screening in a minority, low-income population. This intervention influenced risk perceptions about diabetes complications. Further research is needed to develop effective risk communications to prevent the complications of diabetes.
Authors: Donald S Fong; Lloyd Aiello; Thomas W Gardner; George L King; George Blankenship; Jerry D Cavallerano; Fredrick L Ferris; Ronald Klein Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Arlene Caban; Clyde B Schechter; Charles E Basch; Emelinda Blanco; Tara DeWitt; Maria R Kalten; Maria S Mera; Gisele Mojica Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Jinan B Saaddine; Michael M Engelgau; Gloria L Beckles; Edward W Gregg; Theodore J Thompson; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Edwin B Fisher; Elizabeth A Walker; Ann Bostrom; Baruch Fischhoff; Debra Haire-Joshu; Suzanne Bennett Johnson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Robert M Anderson; David C Musch; Robin B Nwankwo; Fredric M Wolf; Mary Lou Gillard; Mary S Oh; James T Fitzgerald; Mark W Johnson; Roland G Hiss Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Lynn D Silver; Shadi Chamany; Clyde B Schechter; Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Jeidy Carrasco; Danielle Powell; Diana Berger; Charles E Basch Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Clyde B Schechter; Elizabeth A Walker; Felix M Ortega; Shadi Chamany; Lynn D Silver Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Shantanu Nundy; Anjuli Mishra; Patrick Hogan; Sang Mee Lee; Marla C Solomon; Monica E Peek Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin; Karen Searcey; June Weston; Angelia Johnson; Beth T Stalvey; Bin Liu; Christopher A Girkin Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.798