↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for poor follow-up of diabetic retinopathy patients after screening in Tanzania: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reasons for poor follow-up of diabetic retinopathy patients after screening in Tanzania: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12886-016-0288-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Mtuya, Charles R. Cleland, Heiko Philippin, Kidayi Paulo, Bernard Njau, William U. Makupa, Claudette Hall, Anthony Hall, Paul Courtright, Declare Mushi

Abstract

Diabetes is an emerging public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa. Diabetic retinopathy is the commonest microvascular complication of diabetes and is a leading cause of blindness, mainly in adults of working age. Follow-up is crucial to the effective management of diabetic retinopathy, however, follow-up rates are often poor in sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of this study was to assess the proportion of patients not presenting for follow-up and the reasons for poor follow-up of diabetic patients after screening for retinopathy in Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania. All diabetic patients referred to a tertiary ophthalmology hospital after screening for retinopathy in 2012 were eligible for inclusion in the study. A randomly selected group of patients from the community-based diabetic retinopathy screening register were identified; among this group, follow-up was assessed. Interviews were conducted within this group to inform on the reasons for poor follow-up. Among the 203 patients interviewed in the study 50 patients (24.6 %) attended the recommended referral appointment and 153 (75.4 %) did not. Financial reasons were self-reported by 35.3 % of those who did not attend the follow-up appointment as the reason for non-attendance. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the patient report of the clarity of the referral process (p = 0.014) and the patient report of whether a healthcare worker told the patient that diabetic retinopathy could be treated (p = 0.005) were independently associated with attendance at a follow-up appointment. Income per month was not associated with attendance at a follow-up appointment on multivariate analysis. Financial factors are commonly cited as the reason for non-compliance with follow-up recommendations. However, the reasons for poor compliance are likely to be more complicated. This study highlights the importance of health system factors. Improving the clarity of the referral process and frequent reminders to patients that diabetic retinopathy can be treated are practical strategies that should be incorporated into screening programmes to increase attendance at subsequent follow-up appointments. The results from this study are applicable to other screening programmes as well as those for diabetic retinopathy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 46 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 51 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,385,759
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#344
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,431
of 363,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#6
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.