Amelia J Lake1, Jessica L Browne2, Gwyneth Rees3, Jane Speight4. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: alake@acbrd.org.au. 2. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, 3002, Australia; Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, Australia. 4. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; AHP Research, Hornchurch, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: Young adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D, 18-39years) face increased risk of vision loss from diabetic retinopathy (DR). Retinal screening is essential to detect DR, yet screening rates for this group are low and little is known about the underlying factors influencing this important behavior. Using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to guide data collection and analysis, we explored screening barriers and facilitator, contrasting them with a comparator group of older adults with T2D (40+ years). METHODS: Thirty semi-structured telephone interviews (10 younger, 20 older adults) were conducted. Data were coded into TDF domains with salience identified by "frequency" of reference. Screening facilitators and barriers were systematically compared between groups. RESULTS: Although many screening facilitators and barriers were shared by younger and older adults, additional factors highly relevant to the former included: social comparison with others ('social influences'); concern for the impact on the family unit, unrealistic optimism and perceived invulnerability ('beliefs about consequences'); lack of time and financial resources ('environmental context and resources'), and DR misconceptions ('knowledge'). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that young adult retinal screening behavior was influenced by additional social cognitive factors compared to older adults, providing a first-step evidence base for clinicians and other health professionals, and potential targets for future eye health and retinal screening interventions.
AIMS: Young adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D, 18-39years) face increased risk of vision loss from diabetic retinopathy (DR). Retinal screening is essential to detect DR, yet screening rates for this group are low and little is known about the underlying factors influencing this important behavior. Using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to guide data collection and analysis, we explored screening barriers and facilitator, contrasting them with a comparator group of older adults with T2D (40+ years). METHODS: Thirty semi-structured telephone interviews (10 younger, 20 older adults) were conducted. Data were coded into TDF domains with salience identified by "frequency" of reference. Screening facilitators and barriers were systematically compared between groups. RESULTS: Although many screening facilitators and barriers were shared by younger and older adults, additional factors highly relevant to the former included: social comparison with others ('social influences'); concern for the impact on the family unit, unrealistic optimism and perceived invulnerability ('beliefs about consequences'); lack of time and financial resources ('environmental context and resources'), and DR misconceptions ('knowledge'). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that young adult retinal screening behavior was influenced by additional social cognitive factors compared to older adults, providing a first-step evidence base for clinicians and other health professionals, and potential targets for future eye health and retinal screening interventions.
Authors: Emma E McGinty; Elizabeth M Stone; Alene Kennedy-Hendricks; Sachini Bandara; Karly A Murphy; Elizabeth A Stuart; Michael A Rosenblum; Gail L Daumit Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amelia J Lake; Jessica L Browne; Charles Abraham; Dee Tumino; Carolyn Hines; Gwyneth Rees; Jane Speight Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Radhika Ramagiri; Nanda K Kannuri; Melissa G Lewis; G V S Murthy; Clare Gilbert Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 1.848
Authors: Deirdre Timlin; Barbara Giannantoni; Jacqueline M McCormack; Angela Polito; Donatella Ciarapica; Elena Azzini; Melanie Giles; Ellen E A Simpson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.295