Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 14;22(1):507.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07915-5.

Ranked determinants of telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening performance in the United States primary care safety-net setting: an exploratory CART analysis

Affiliations

Ranked determinants of telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening performance in the United States primary care safety-net setting: an exploratory CART analysis

S Lee Ware et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide, despite easy detection and effective treatment. Annual screening rates in the USA remain low, especially for the disadvantaged, which telemedicine-based DR screening (TDRS) during routine primary care has been shown to improve. Screening rates from such programs have varied, however, pointing to inconsistent implementation and unaddressed barriers. This work seeks to identify and prioritize modifiable barriers for targeted intervention.

Methods: In this final phase of an exploratory mixed-methods study, we developed, validated, and administered a 62-item survey to multilevel stakeholders involved with TDRS in primary care safety-net clinics. Survey items were aligned with previously identified determinants of clinic-level screening and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses were used to identify and rank independent variables predictive of individual-level TDRS screening performance.

Results: Overall, 133 of the 341 invited professionals responded (39%), representing 20 safety-net clinics across 6 clinical systems. Respondents were predominately non-Hispanic White (77%), female (94%), and between 31 and 65 years of age (79%). Satisfaction with TDRS was high despite low self-reported screening rates. The most important screening determinants were: provider reinforcement of TDRS importance; explicit instructions by providers to staff; effective reminders; standing orders; high relative priority among routine diabetic measures; established TDRS workflows; performance feedback; effective TDRS champions; and leadership support.

Conclusions: In this survey of stakeholders involved with TDRS in safety-net clinics, screening was low despite high satisfaction with the intervention. The best predictors of screening performance mapped to the CFIR constructs Leadership Engagement, Compatibility, Goals & Feedback, Relative Priority, Champions, and Available Resources. These findings facilitate the prioritization of implementation strategies targeting determinants of TDRS performance, potentially increasing its public health impact.

Keywords: Barriers and facilitators; Classification and regression tree (CART); Consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR); Determinants; Diabetic retinopathy; Mixed methods; Primary care; Screening; Telemedicine; Underserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Primary classification tree for modifiable determinants of TDRS performance. Abbreviations: TDRS and TS, telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Convergence of determinants associated with TDRS performance upon aligned CFIR constructs. Abbreviations: CFIR, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; TDRS, telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening; CART, Classification and Regression Tree; VIR, variable importance ranking. The Phase III variable ranking was determined from each variable’s VIR value in the primary or secondary CART model

References

    1. Lee R, Wong TY, Sabanayagam C. Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema and related vision loss. Eye Vis. 2015;2:17. doi: 10.1186/s40662-015-0026-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Comprehensive Diabetes Care. NCQA. https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/measures/comprehensive-diabetes-care/. Accessed 18 Mar 2020.
    1. Fathy C, Patel S, Sternberg P, Kohanim S. Disparities in adherence to screening guidelines for diabetic retinopathy in the United States: a comprehensive review and guide for future directions. Semin Ophthalmol. 2016;31:364–377. doi: 10.3109/08820538.2016.1154170. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lu Y, Serpas L, Genter P, Mehranbod C, Campa D, Ipp E. Disparities in diabetic retinopathy screening rates within minority populations: differences in reported screening rates among African American and Hispanic patients. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:e31–e32. doi: 10.2337/dc15-2198. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gibson DM. Estimates of the percentage of US adults with diabetes who could be screened for diabetic retinopathy in primary care settings. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:440–444. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.6909. - DOI - PMC - PubMed