Hollie L Jones1, Elizabeth A Walker2, Clyde B Schechter2, Emelinda Blanco2. 1. Medgar Evers College, City University of New York, Department of Psychology, Brooklyn, New York (Dr Jones) 2. The Diabetes Research Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (Dr Walker, Dr Schechter, Ms Blanco)
Abstract
PURPOSE: This purpose of this report is to describe a successful telephone intervention to increase the rate of diabetic retinopathy screening, its implementation with English and Spanish speakers, and the characteristics of those who benefited most from the intervention. METHODS:Participants in the telephone group (N = 305) received a tailored intervention from trained health educators who were ethnically diverse and representative of the community. The main outcome for the randomized controlled study was documented receipt of a dilated fundus examination (DFE) within the 6-month study window. Exploratory analyses focused on examining the factors that contribute to receiving a DFE within 6 months for participants in the tailored telephone intervention using Pearson chi(2) and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Participants in the telephone intervention who did not receive a DFE had significantly more documented steps in the behavioral process than those who did receive a DFE, and ethnic concordance of the health educator was not significantly associated with a positive outcome in the DFE group. There was a negative association between the time spent building rapport and receipt of DFE. As time spent engaging in educational activities by telephone increased, the likelihood of receiving a DFE increased. CONCLUSIONS: Although the telephone intervention was highly successful compared with the print intervention, these process results demonstrate the difficulties and challenges of conducting a tailored telephone intervention to improve rates of screening in an underserved, diverse urban community.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This purpose of this report is to describe a successful telephone intervention to increase the rate of diabetic retinopathy screening, its implementation with English and Spanish speakers, and the characteristics of those who benefited most from the intervention. METHODS:Participants in the telephone group (N = 305) received a tailored intervention from trained health educators who were ethnically diverse and representative of the community. The main outcome for the randomized controlled study was documented receipt of a dilated fundus examination (DFE) within the 6-month study window. Exploratory analyses focused on examining the factors that contribute to receiving a DFE within 6 months for participants in the tailored telephone intervention using Pearson chi(2) and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:Participants in the telephone intervention who did not receive a DFE had significantly more documented steps in the behavioral process than those who did receive a DFE, and ethnic concordance of the health educator was not significantly associated with a positive outcome in the DFE group. There was a negative association between the time spent building rapport and receipt of DFE. As time spent engaging in educational activities by telephone increased, the likelihood of receiving a DFE increased. CONCLUSIONS: Although the telephone intervention was highly successful compared with the print intervention, these process results demonstrate the difficulties and challenges of conducting a tailored telephone intervention to improve rates of screening in an underserved, diverse urban community.
Authors: S J Lee; C A McCarty; C Sicari; P M Livingston; C A Harper; H R Taylor; J E Keeffe Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: John H Kempen; Benita J O'Colmain; M Cristina Leske; Steven M Haffner; Ronald Klein; Scot E Moss; Hugh R Taylor; Richard F Hamman Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-04
Authors: Tien Yin Wong; Ronald Klein; F M Amirul Islam; Mary Frances Cotch; Aaron R Folsom; Barbara E K Klein; A Richey Sharrett; Steven Shea Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Paul R Marantz; A Hal Strelnick; Brian Currie; Rohit Bhalla; Arthur E Blank; Paul Meissner; Peter A Selwyn; Elizabeth A Walker; Daphne T Hsu; Harry Shamoon Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Betsy Sleath; Scott Davis; Robyn Sayner; Delesha M Carpenter; Terence Johnson; Susan J Blalock; Alan L Robin Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.973
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
Authors: Lisa Marie Hamm; Joanna Black; Helen Burn; Corina Grey; Matire Harwood; Roshini Peiris-John; Iris Gordon; Matthew J Burton; Jennifer R Evans; Jacqueline Ramke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: John G Lawrenson; Ella Graham-Rowe; Fabiana Lorencatto; Jennifer Burr; Catey Bunce; Jillian J Francis; Patricia Aluko; Stephen Rice; Luke Vale; Tunde Peto; Justin Presseau; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-15
Authors: Betsy Sleath; Scott A Davis; Delesha M Carpenter; Alan L Robin; Kelly W Muir; Charles Lee; Nacire Garcia; Donald L Budenz Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Cynthia Owsley; Lindsay A Rhodes; Gerald McGwin; Stephen T Mennemeyer; Mary Bregantini; Nita Patel; Demond M Wiley; Frank LaRussa; Dan Box; Jinan Saaddine; John E Crews; Christopher A Girkin Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2015-11-18