| Literature DB >> 31113393 |
M M P N Piyasena1,2, Maria Zuurmond3, Jennifer L Y Yip4, G V S Murthy4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One major barrier to uptake of diabetic retinopathy (DR) services is lack of knowledge and awareness of DR among the people with diabetes (PwDM). Targeted health education (HE) can be a key element in improving the uptake of eye care services. Such interventions are lacking in Sri Lanka.Entities:
Keywords: Acceptability; Diabetic retinopathy; Health education; Referral; Screening; Sri Lanka
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31113393 PMCID: PMC6528317 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6880-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Fig. 1Flowchart of steps in development of HE intervention
Key stakeholders
| Public health sector | |
| 1) Health Education and Promotion Unit – Ministry of Health – Sri Lanka | |
| 2) College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka | |
| 3) Diabetes Education Unit – National Hospital of Sri Lanka | |
| 4) Vision 2020 Program (DR blindness prevention program) – Ministry of Health – Sri Lanka | |
| 5) Department of Sociology (Medical anthropology) | |
| 6) Media personnel (a newspaper reporter) | |
| 7) A person with diabetes and a person with DR from the Western province (patient representatives) | |
| Service delivery personnel | |
| 8) Association of Vitreo Retina Specialists of Sri Lanka | |
| 9) College of Ophthalmologists of Sri Lanka | |
| 10) Sri Lanka Optometric Association - Sri Lanka | |
| 11) Ceylon College of Physicians - Sri Lanka | |
| 12) College of Endocrinologists - Sri Lanka |
Schedule of the participatory workshop
| Day | Participants | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | All | Introduced to the research question by main investigator |
Sub groups 1 – Sinhala Subgroup 2 – Tamil | Group work on identifying needs, problems and solutions on accessing services at ophthalmologist’s / retinologist’s clinic following referral (those who identified with referable level DR) from medical clinic – facilitated by moderators | |
| Sub groups 1 and 2 | Exposure to adapted and developed provisional HE interventions – facilitated by moderators | |
| Day 2 | Sub groups 1 and 2 | Development / modification of HE interventions appropriate to the local context by incorporating participants’ ideas - facilitated by moderators |
| Day 3 | Sub groups 1 | Presentation and discussion of findings of assessment of developed HE interventions by participants – facilitated by main investigator with co-moderators. |
| Day 4 | Sub groups 2 |
Participants characteristics of those who underwent delivering and assessment of HEI
| Variable | Results |
|---|---|
| Mean age (SD) | 62.3 years (±9.7) |
| Mean age at diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (SD) | 50.8 years (±8.9) |
| Mean duration of diabetes mellitus (SD) | 11.5 years (±9.0) |
| Gender | Female 57.8% (26/45) |
| Male 42.2% (19/45) | |
| Ethnic group | Sinhalese 53.35% (24/45) |
| Tamil 24.4% (11/45) | |
| Moor 22.2% (10/45) | |
| Main language | Sinhala 53.3% (24/45) |
| Tamil 46.7 (21/45) | |
| Residing district | Colombo 93.3% (42/45) |
| Gampaha 4.4% (2/45) | |
| Kalutara 2.2% (1/45) | |
| Level of education | No Schooling 15.6% (7/45) |
| Primary (Grade 1 to 5) 31. 1% (14/45) | |
| Secondary (Grade 6 to 10) 17.85 (8/45) | |
| Up to GCE O/L (Grade 11) 15.6% (7/45) | |
| Up to GCE A/L (Grade 12) 17.8% (8/45) | |
| Degree and above 2.2% (1/45) | |
| Level of monthly income | Low (< £150) 80.0% (36/45) |
| Middle (<£300 > £ 150) 8.9% (4/45) | |
| High (> £300) 11.1% (5/45) | |
| Wearing spectacles at presentation (near or distant) | Had spectacles at presentation 46.7% (21/45) |
| Did not have 53.3% (24/45) | |
| Level of diabetic retinopathy | Right eye – No DR 8.9%, any DR 91.1% |
| Left eye – No DR 11.1%, any DR 88.9% |
Main themes and source of information for development of the HE material development
| Theme/ Subtheme and Source of Information | Illustrative Quotations | Implication for Development of HE Material |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Main domain- Individual level-personal factors | ||
| Knowledge, expectations and attitude | ||
| 1.1 Lack of knowledge on DR &DRS | ||
-Lack of biological knowledge of the eye, DR affects the back of the inside of the eye and changes are not visible from outside. -Lack of understanding of early asymptomatic stage.
-Necessity of providing distinct information to make PwDM aware of DR. |
| -Inclusion of information on DM caused by high sugar levels in blood, this will lead to changes of blood vessels at the back of the inside of the eye which are not visible from outside. -Incorporation of graphics and animations to explain the changes in the eye. |
| 1.2 Lack of knowledge on referral system | ||
-Inadequate information in the referral letter.
-Need of clear stepwise guide on directions of reaching to eye clinic from the medical clinic, with a suggestion to include a map and how to get an appointment. -Information on procedures that will take place at the eye clinic, days and time of eye clinics. -Forgetfulness of the information relevant to the eye screening appointment.
-Suggest including a flow chart about the process of referral pathways – step wise actions to go from the medical clinic to eye clinic. |
| -Inclusion of information on availability of free services at the nearest eye clinic. -Map with directions (in the leaflet), how to get an appointment of out-patient eye clinic, the details of eye examination/consultation processes happen at each stage. -Provide a space in the leaflet to mention details of next appointment (to be documented by the eye doctor). -Inclusion of a flowchart guidance on processes at eye clinic/eye hospital. |
| 1.3 Attitude on uptake of DR services | ||
-Need to emphasise the necessity of DRS even without having visual symptoms.
Reluctant to uptake services due to long waiting time at the eye clinic. |
| -Emphasise on early asymptomatic phase and need of regular screening even without any symptoms. |
| 1.4 Attitude of lack of perceived threat on DR blindness | ||
-Benefits of action (screening) and threats of inaction (sight loss).
-Benefits of annual screening, DR assessment and treatment at the eye clinic. |
| -Highlight the danger of losing sight due to DM / DR and it is irreversible. -Information on early screening, detection and treatment can prevent sight loss. |
| 1.5 Attitude of fear of uptake of services | ||
-Fear of dilated fundoscopy, -Need of accompaniment following dilatation, -Lack of knowledge on process and requirement of pupil dilatation in retinal examination.
-PwDM reluctant to undergo pupil dilatation
-Ensure details of eye examination do not promote fear.
-Fear to uptake laser and surgery. |
| -Inclusion of information on why there is a need for pupil dilatation (to have a better view of the back of the inside of the eye). Provisions of reassurance by an expert patient -Include information on blurring as a temporary side effect but include reassurance that this is normal. -To include guidance that accompaniment needed. -Guidance that no driving recommended following examination for up to 4–6 h time period. |
| 1.6 Current level of expectation | ||
-Need to describe DR as a separate entity, and it is different from cataract, glaucoma and vision problems that would require spectacles
-Confusions on DR screening over other forms of eye examination (refraction and cataract assessment) |
| -Inclusion of information DR as a separate eye problem and undergoing cataract surgery and using spectacles will not correct all visual problems. - Need of salient information on DR and DRS. |
| 1.7 Expectation of Information on outcome of eye examination | ||
-Describe the outcomes of screening |
| -Include information on outcome of the DRS and necessity of undergoing treatment as required. -Inclusion of information on availability of free DR treatment facilities at the eye clinic/public sector hospital. |
| 2.Main domain - Environment | ||
| Social norms and access to information | ||
| 2.1 Social norms in the local context (lay referral systems) | ||
-Practice of indigenous medicine, engage in religious activities and use of home remedies, -Belief of blindness occur due to ageing, karma or faith.
-Decision making for women happen at the home environment decided by a male member of family. |
| -Provision of information to refrain from those activities. |
| 2.2 Access to information and influences from the environment | ||
-Lack of availability of health educational interventions on DR in local languages.
-Difficulties in communication with the providers (language barriers and usage of technical terms). |
| The need of HEI in local languages. |
| 3. Main domain -Mode of Delivery | ||
| Medium, personnel and place of delivery | ||
| 3.1 Views on medium of delivery | ||
-Video, leaflet and poster as the suitable media for this context.
-Majority preferred a leaflet, -Majority of the participants who speak Tamil preferred a video-based health educational intervention (assessed using a ranking system at PW). |
| -Investigators consensus - Development of a leaflet and a video intervention in local languages (original version in English) |
| 3.2 Views on place of delivery | ||
-Medical clinic as the best place to deliver.
-Majority wanted HE to be conducted at the medical clinics. |
| -Field testing of the HEI at medical clinic. |
| 3.3 Views on personnel of delivery | ||
-Delivery by doctor or a nurse.
-Health education should be done by a doctor or a nurse, best delivered by a doctor. |
| -Field testing delivery of the HEI by the physicians at the medical clinic |
| 4. Main domain – Comprehensibility and Readability | ||
| Comprehension, readability and terminology | ||
| 4.1 Difficulties in finding the terminology in local languages | ||
-Difficulties in understanding the terms of; retina, diabetic retinopathy, laser, pupil, pupil dilation, blood glucose. |
| -Use of phrases in local languages when there were no appropriate terms in local language. |
| 4.2 Views on layout and format (printed material and video). | ||
-Inclusion of information on question and answer format. -Incorporation of graphics and animations to explain that DR affects back of the inside of the eye. -Reduce the number of sentences per page.
-Usage of high-resolution images. -Usage of large fronts and large page sizes. |
| -Follow the suggestions given |
| 4.3 Usage of appropriate language matching the literacy level of the PwDM in the context | ||
-Minimise the usage of technical terms and direct use of words in English. -Availability of the alternatives for illiterate PwDM. - Need of locally acceptable terminology to deliver information.
-Minimal usage of technical terms and usage of phrases when it is difficult to find the terms in local languages. |
| -Followed the suggestions given in development of HEI. |
| 5. Main domain - Behaviour | ||
| Skills of acquiring information and cues for action | ||
| 5.1 Component of potential behaviour change | ||
-Sharing the experiences of PwDM, those who had STDR / acute loss of vision. PW - Skills and practice of acquiring knowledge and uptake of services |
| -Inclusion of a video segment of a patient sharing the experiences of acute vision loss (e.g. vitreous haemorrhage) |
astakeholder interviews
bparticipatory workshops with PwDM
cfocus group discussions with PwDM
dsemi-structured interviews with providers
Main and sub-themes of field testing of the developed HEI
| Main Domain | Theme | Sub-theme | Example Quotation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Comprehension and readability | 1.1) Intelligibility of the leaflet and video | Understanding of diabetes lead to blindness and eye check-up prevent sight loss |
|
| Difficulties in reading the leaflet by some PwDM |
| ||
| 1.2) Difficulty in interpreting figures and medical images | Difficulty in understanding of the fundus images (in page number 03-leaflet). |
| |
| 1.3) Level of simplicity and cultural appropriateness of the language style | Not preferring different colloquial languages in Tamil |
| |
| 2)Actionability | 2.1) Ability to extract key messages of referral uptake | Understanding importance of follow-up as a key message |
|
| Understanding of Facilities are available at XX hospital. |
| ||
| 3) Mode of Delivery | 3.1) Preference over delivery at the medical clinic | Preference of delivering and effective use of waiting time at the medical clinic. |
|
| 3.2) Usability and willingness to share the HE material | Level of sharing resources |
| |
| 3.3) Overall high social acceptability and attractiveness of the HEI | High acceptance of the delivered leaflet and video. |
|