OBJECTIVES: To investigate socioeconomic variations in diabetes prevalence, uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy, and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: The County of Gloucestershire formed the setting of the study. A cross-sectional study of people with diabetes was done on a countywide retinopathy-screening database. Diabetes prevalence with odds ratios, uptake of screening, prevalence of any retinopathy and prevalence of sight-threatening retinopathy at screening were compared for different area deprivation quintiles. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: With each increasing quintile of deprivation, diabetes prevalence increased (odds ratio 0.84), the probability of having been screened for diabetic retinopathy decreased (odds ratio 1.11), and the prevalence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among screened patients increased (odds ratio of 0.98), while the prevalence of non-sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy remained unchanged with each increasing quintile of deprivation. CONCLUSION: Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy was associated with socioeconomic deprivation, but non-sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy was not. Uptake of screening was inversely related to socioeconomic deprivation.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate socioeconomic variations in diabetes prevalence, uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy, and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: The County of Gloucestershire formed the setting of the study. A cross-sectional study of people with diabetes was done on a countywide retinopathy-screening database. Diabetes prevalence with odds ratios, uptake of screening, prevalence of any retinopathy and prevalence of sight-threatening retinopathy at screening were compared for different area deprivation quintiles. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: With each increasing quintile of deprivation, diabetes prevalence increased (odds ratio 0.84), the probability of having been screened for diabetic retinopathy decreased (odds ratio 1.11), and the prevalence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among screened patients increased (odds ratio of 0.98), while the prevalence of non-sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy remained unchanged with each increasing quintile of deprivation. CONCLUSION: Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy was associated with socioeconomic deprivation, but non-sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy was not. Uptake of screening was inversely related to socioeconomic deprivation.
Authors: Liying Low; Jonathan P Law; James Hodson; Ritchie McAlpine; Una O'Colmain; Caroline MacEwen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mark Lane; Priscilla A Mathewson; Hannah E Sharma; Helen Palmer; Peter Shah; Peter Nightingale; Marie D Tsaloumas; Alastair K Denniston Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02-17
Authors: Irene M Stratton; Stephen J Aldington; David J Taylor; Amanda I Adler; Peter H Scanlon Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Antje Lindenmeyer; Jackie A Sturt; Alison Hipwell; Irene M Stratton; Nidal Al-Athamneh; Roger Gadsby; Joseph Paul O'Hare; Peter H Scanlon Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.386