| Literature DB >> 34910755 |
Stevens Bechange1, Anne Roca2, Elena Schmidt2, Munazza Gillani1, Leena Ahmed1, Robina Iqbal1, Imran Nazir1, Anna Ruddock2, Muhammed Bilal1, Itfaq Khaliq Khan1, Sandeep Buttan3, Emma Jolley2.
Abstract
This paper is based on qualitative research carried out in a diabetic retinopathy (DR) programme in three districts of Pakistan. It analyses the organisation and delivery of DR services and the extent to which the interventions resulted in a fully functioning integrated approach to DR care and treatment. Between January and April 2019, we conducted 14 focus group discussions and 37 in-depth interviews with 144 purposively selected participants: patients, lady health workers (LHWs) and health professionals. Findings suggest that integration of services was helpful in the prevention and management of DR. Through the efforts of LHWs and general practitioners, diabetic patients in the community became aware of the eye health issues related to uncontrolled diabetes. However, a number of systemic pressure points in the continuum of care seem to have limited the impact of the integration. Some components of the intervention, such as a patient tracking system and reinforced interdepartmental links, show great promise and need to be sustained. The results of this study point to the need for action to ensure inclusion of DR on the list of local health departments' priority conditions, greater provision of closer-to-community services, such as mobile clinics. Future interventions will need to consider the complexity of adding diabetic retinopathy to an already heavy workload for the LHWs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34910755 PMCID: PMC8673653 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260936
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Overview of themes and subthemes.
| Theme | Sub-themes and illustrative examples | Some illustrative quotes |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Limited interactions with men, male patients did not clearly understand the role of LHWs in diabetic care | ||
| LHWs felt that the uptake of services could be improved if they could find a way to engage more men, and other influential people in the community. | ||
| Training received generally increased LHWs knowledge and skills in guiding and counselling patients. | ||
| Lack of understanding of what happens when patients visit the hospitals. | ||
| In some cases, LHWs told patients that a referral slip by a LHW would allow them to skip the queue at the hospital. This information was incorrect, which frustrated patients who had to spend hours queuing at the hospital and in some cases, returned home without seeing a doctor. | ||
| Some patients felt that the LHWs in their community did not dedicate sufficient time with patients to explain the problem of diabetes and related risks. | ||
| LHWs felt that there was little attention given to eye health more broadly, and highlighted a lack of visible eye health promotion campaigns in the media, in contrast to the campaigns organised for polio, dengue fever or reproductive health. | ||
|
| ||
| LHWs activities focus on the issues identified by the government as health priorities and those that are required in their monthly reports | ||
| There was no government requirement to monitor and report the DR referral uptake. | ||
| Role of LHWs in eye care could be improved if eye health was included in the Department of Health priority list and if LHWs were required to report eye health indicators as part of their routine activities. | ||
|
| ||
| Some LHWs felt that there was confusion about what services they were expected to provide in diabetes and eye care. Some patients for example thought LHWs should have the necessary equipment for measuring blood pressure and glucose level and carry the equipment to home visits in the same way they carry scales to weigh babies. | ||
| LHWs also felt overburdened with a range of duties and responsibilities and even though many LHWs were in principle interested to provide more eye related services, there were concerns about feasibility of doing it effectively within the time and resources available | ||
| Other healthcare stakeholders also expressed concerns about LHWs’ workload and the limited support systems available to them. | ||
|
| ||
| Very few patients referred by LHWs took up their referral straight away. | ||
| Many referred patients, both men and women, tended to visit another healthcare practitioner at the community or district level for ‘a more professional opinion’ before making a trip to the DM/DR facility. | ||
|
| ||
| Majority of patients referred by GPs, MOs or MTs took up their referrals. | ||
| Patients pointed out that they trusted the opinion of the medical personnel and treated their referral as a matter of urgency. | ||
| Some patients noted further that the health care personnel who they consulted explained potential health complications of diabetes well and answered the questions the patients asked. | ||
|
| ||
| Brought in the highest number of DM/DR cases. | ||
| A large number of patients (>50 per day), many of whom were walk-ins, attended the hospital based on recommendations of other patients (Karachi).* | ||
| Patients described their positive experiences with hospital and good quality services delivered at subsidised prices making eye care affordable for poorer patients (Karachi). | ||
|
|
| |
| Positive perception of health facility and services. | ||
| Time- and cost-efficient with different types of examinations and tests carried out in a short span of time and the laboratory results often available on the same day. | ||
| Often overcrowded with more than 100 patients attending every day. | ||
| Narrow corridors, making the movement of elderly patients and wheelchair users challenging (Lahore). | ||
| Patient frustration with having to walk long distances between units located more than a kilometre apart. | ||
|
| ||
| The system was linked with the hospital databases and used to generate lists of patients scheduled for follow up two days before their appointment. | ||
| Patients reported that the messages or phone call reminders were very helpful to ensure the visit to the hospital on the scheduled date. | ||
|
| ||
| All patients who came to these facilities for DR/DM services saw a counsellor. | ||
| Patients reported a high degree of appreciation for the role of the counsellors as their main contact in seeking advice on the day-to-day management of diabetes and eye related problems. | ||
|
| ||
| Patients reported that when prescribed medicines at the hospital, they were asked to procure them from private vendors outside the hospital, at high and often variable prices. | ||
| Medicines for diabetes and eye diseases were available to hospital patients at discounted prices, as were glucometers and diabetic strips to test blood sugar level (Karachi) | ||
|
|
| |
| The majority of patients interviewed were unemployed. | ||
| For many, basic household needs such as housing, food and children’s education, were of higher priority than healthcare. | ||
| Many people could not afford medical consultations and reported buying medicines from pharmacies on an ad-hoc basis or using homemade and herbal remedies. | ||
| hospitals tried to be sensitive and responsive to the patients’ financial circumstances and made arrangements for financial support (Karachi). | ||
|
| ||
| Long queues and waiting times (>6 h) affecting livelihood demands. | ||
| Waiting long hours in a queue was painful for patients with advanced diabetes. | ||
| Patients, who needed only simple routine monitoring said that they preferred visiting community GPs, who were available in the evenings and could check blood pressure and sugar level at a small fee. | ||
|
| ||
| Availability of public transportation was reported to be a major factor in the uptake of referrals. | ||
| The costs of private taxis was reported to be too high, and the majority of patients could not afford them. | ||
| Female patients were reported to have additional barriers with travelling, as they were required to get permission from their husbands to visit the hospital and also needed someone to accompany them. | ||
|
| ||
| Even those who were reasonably well educated, did not seem to be aware of eye related complications of diabetes. |
LHW: lady health worker; GP: general practitioner; MO: medical officer; MT: medical technician; DM: diabetes mellitus; DR: diabetic retinopathy. *Where an issue was mentioned in one study site, this is marked with the district name.