Christina R Sheppler1, William E Lambert2, Stuart K Gardiner3, Thomas M Becker2, Steven L Mansberger3. 1. Devers Eye Institute/Discoveries in Sight, Legacy Health, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: CSheppler@deverseye.org. 2. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 3. Devers Eye Institute/Discoveries in Sight, Legacy Health, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that predict adherence with annual eye examinations using the Compliance with Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey (CADEES), a new questionnaire designed to measure health beliefs related to diabetic retinopathy and annual eye examinations. DESIGN: Questionnaire development. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred sixteen adults with diabetes. METHODS: We developed the CADEES based on a review of the literature, the framework of the Health Belief Model, expert opinion, and pilot study data. To examine content validity, we analyzed participant responses to an open-ended question asking for reasons why people do not obtain annual eye examinations. We evaluated construct validity with principal components analysis and examined internal consistency with Cronbach's α. To assess predictive validity, we used multivariate logistic regression with self-reported adherence as the dependent variable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations with self-reported adherence (defined as having a dilated eye examination in the past year). RESULTS: The content analysis showed that CADEES items covered 89% of the reasons given by participants for not obtaining an annual eye examination. The principal components analysis identified 3 informative components that made up 32% of the variance. Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed several significant predictors of adherence, including beliefs concerning whether insurance covered most of the eye examination cost (P < 0.01), whether there were general barriers that make it difficult to obtain an eye examination (P < 0.01), whether obtaining an eye examination was a top priority (P = 0.02), and whether diabetic eye disease can be seen with an examination (P = 0.05). Lower hemoglobin A1c levels (P < 0.01), having insurance (P = 0.01), and a longer duration of diabetes (P = 0.02) also were associated with adherence. A multivariate model containing CADEES items and demographic variables classified cases with 72% accuracy and explained approximately 24% of the variance in adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The CADEES showed good content and predictive validity. Although additional research is needed before finalizing a shorter version of the survey, our findings suggest that researchers and clinicians may be able to improve adherence by (1) counseling newly diagnosed patients, as well as those with uncontrolled blood glucose, on the importance of annual eye examinations and (2) discussing perceived barriers and misconceptions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that predict adherence with annual eye examinations using the Compliance with Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey (CADEES), a new questionnaire designed to measure health beliefs related to diabetic retinopathy and annual eye examinations. DESIGN: Questionnaire development. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred sixteen adults with diabetes. METHODS: We developed the CADEES based on a review of the literature, the framework of the Health Belief Model, expert opinion, and pilot study data. To examine content validity, we analyzed participant responses to an open-ended question asking for reasons why people do not obtain annual eye examinations. We evaluated construct validity with principal components analysis and examined internal consistency with Cronbach's α. To assess predictive validity, we used multivariate logistic regression with self-reported adherence as the dependent variable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations with self-reported adherence (defined as having a dilated eye examination in the past year). RESULTS: The content analysis showed that CADEES items covered 89% of the reasons given by participants for not obtaining an annual eye examination. The principal components analysis identified 3 informative components that made up 32% of the variance. Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed several significant predictors of adherence, including beliefs concerning whether insurance covered most of the eye examination cost (P < 0.01), whether there were general barriers that make it difficult to obtain an eye examination (P < 0.01), whether obtaining an eye examination was a top priority (P = 0.02), and whether diabetic eye disease can be seen with an examination (P = 0.05). Lower hemoglobin A1c levels (P < 0.01), having insurance (P = 0.01), and a longer duration of diabetes (P = 0.02) also were associated with adherence. A multivariate model containing CADEES items and demographic variables classified cases with 72% accuracy and explained approximately 24% of the variance in adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The CADEES showed good content and predictive validity. Although additional research is needed before finalizing a shorter version of the survey, our findings suggest that researchers and clinicians may be able to improve adherence by (1) counseling newly diagnosed patients, as well as those with uncontrolled blood glucose, on the importance of annual eye examinations and (2) discussing perceived barriers and misconceptions.
Authors: Gloria L A Beckles; David F Williamson; Arleen F Brown; Edward W Gregg; Andrew J Karter; Catherine Kim; R Adams Dudley; Monika M Safford; Mark R Stevens; Theodore J Thompson Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Steven L Mansberger; Christina Sheppler; Gordon Barker; Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Kathleen Wooten; Thomas M Becker Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Nita G Valikodath; Thellea K Leveque; Sophia Y Wang; Paul P Lee; Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Sean O Hansen; Maria A Woodward Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: JinXiao Lian; Sarah M McGhee; Rita A Gangwani; Cindy L K Lam; Maurice K H Yap; David S H Wong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sarah C Haynes; Daniel J Tancredi; Kathleen Tong; Jeffrey S Hoch; Michael K Ong; Theodore G Ganiats; Lorraine S Evangelista; Jeanne T Black; Andrew Auerbach; Patrick S Romano Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2021 Sep-Oct 01 Impact factor: 2.468
Authors: Yao Liu; Nicholas J Zupan; Olayinka O Shiyanbola; Rebecca Swearingen; Julia N Carlson; Nora A Jacobson; Jane E Mahoney; Ronald Klein; Timothy D Bjelland; Maureen A Smith Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240