Patient perceived value of teleophthalmology in an urban, low income US population with diabetes


Authors: Rajeev S. Ramchandran aff001;  Sule Yilmaz aff002;  Evelyn Greaux aff003;  Ann Dozier aff004
Authors place of work: Department of Ophthalmology, Flaum Eye Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States of America aff001;  Department of Human Development and Counseling, Warner School of Education, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America aff002;  Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America aff003;  Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States of America aff004
Published in the journal: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Category: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225300

Summary

Dilated eye exams are the standard of care to detect advancing, vision threatening, but often asymptomatic retinopathy in a timely fashion, allowing for vision preserving treatments. Annual exam rates are suboptimal, especially in underserved populations. Although teleophthalmology programs tremendously improve annual exam rates in low income/under resourced settings, widespread adoption is limited. Using a mixed methods approach, three focus groups and individual interviews were conducted for patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 23) who had a teleophthalmology exam or a dilated eye exam. A survey and discussion assessed patients’ perspectives and value of teleophthalmology, including willingness to pay (WTP). Financial, transportation, and motivational barriers to obtaining an annual dilated eye exam were identified. Patients greatly valued having primary care (PC) based teleophthalmology for its convenience and ability to detect disease to allow for timely treatment and would recommend such a service. Although their WTP was at least the amount of their usual copay, cost was universally cited as a concern. Having a conveniently offered PC based teleophthalmology exam was valued. Educating patients on the value and costs of having such exams may be helpful to encourage informed discussions on eye care, especially in low income, underserved populations. Our study is among the few to provide insight on the value and perceptions of teleophthalmology in US low income, urban minority populations needed to help increase uptake of this innovation. Using surveys followed by facilitated discussion allowed for richer and more varied responses.

Keywords:

Medical doctors – Eye diseases – Eyes – Vision – Insurance – Primary care – Diabetic retinopathy – diabetes mellitus

Introduction

Affecting almost 10% of the US population, diabetes mellitus is a growing pandemic, with a third having diabetic retinopathy, the leading cause of blindness in the working age population [1]. Annual dilated eye exams are the standard of care to detect advancing, vision threatening, but often asymptomatic retinopathy, in a timely fashion [2], allowing for treatments that preserve and improve vision [3, 4]. Unfortunately, at best, only 60–70% of those with diabetes have an annual dilated eye exam. This percentage averages between 25–35% for low income populations in under resourced settings [5, 6].

Teleophthalmology is the innovative utilization of nonmydriatic fundus camera-based retinopathy examination in non-eye care settings, including primary care offices, using eye doctors to remotely grade images and recommend appropriate follow-up eye care. Although such programs have tremendously improved annual examination rates for retinopathy in low income and under resourced settings [79], widespread adoption of such examination technology and processes have yet to occur. Research on patients’ attitudes about teleophthalmology is limited. Understanding how patients perceive the value of using teleophthalmology programs to screen for retinopathy and assess vision in non-eye care settings is important for developing successful programs and increasing its adoption [10, 11]. Qualitative assessment of patient experiences with teleophthalmology through focus groups and interviews allows for improved design and implementation of such programs by understanding local consumer needs [1214].

Conducting focus groups and qualitative analysis to elicit patient experiences and obtain candid perspectives of their health and health care yield richer insights into local community beliefs that influence adoption of health practices than quantitative questionnaires or surveys alone [1220]. Cost and access have been identified as the two main barriers of obtaining dilated eye exams from focus groups assessing the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of patients with diabetes in urban and rural settings in the US [16, 19, 20]. None of these studies addressed the use of teleophthalmology to examine eyes for diabetic retinopathy.

The majority of work evaluating patient experiences with teleophthalmology has focused on international populations using quantitative surveys [2127]. One qualitative study from the UK found that participants value teleophthalmology if they understand why it is being recommended and if it is convenient and accessible by safe transportation [28]. One of the few studies to assess teleophthalmology users in the US noted that patients may not understand the reason for these examinations [29, 30]. A survey of US Veterans with diabetes also found that convenience was a key factor in favoring teleophthalmology. However, this cohort had not actually experienced teleophthalmology [31]. A recently published study identified barriers and facilitators of teleophthalmology among rural, white Caucasian patients in Wisconsin who had experienced this type of examination found that the convenience of teleophthalmology was a key facilitator, whereas not knowing enough about teleophthalmology was a key barrier for having such an exam [30]. Our study investigates how patients value having a teleophthalmology examination offered in urban US primary care provider (PCP) practices serving low income, minority patients. We include the perspective of those who have and who have not undergone such a teleophthalmology exam using qualitative analysis.

Methods

This study was approved by University of Rochester’s Research Subjects Review Board as an exempt study (RSRB00065090). The ethics committee approved the verbal consent procedure and did not require written consent due to the nature and the activities of the study. All participants provided informed verbal consent for their participation and for the audio-recordings during initial phone contact to schedule an interview or a focus group. Participants received $25 cash for their participation in the focus group or interview as well as bus tokens as needed for transportation.

Setting

Two primary care settings serving low income, largely minority, inner city populations in Rochester, NY implemented teleophthalmology programs in conjunction with a local University-based ophthalmology department in 2013 and 2015, respectively. One clinic was in a health system outside the University system. This clinic was hospital based, with approximately 2100 patients with diabetes. The other clinic, owned by the University, was located in a neighborhood setting and had about 500 patients with diabetes. The teleophthalmology program used a Zeiss Visucam NM PRO (Carl Ziess Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA) nonmydriatic fundus camera in the hospital clinic and the Topcon NW400 (Topcon Medical Systems, Inc, Oakland, NJ, USA) nonmydriatic fundus camera in the neighborhood clinic to take three standard fields and one anterior segment photo of each eye. Both clinics used Snellen visual acuity charts to examine patients with diabetes for vision loss without dilating their eyes. Patients without a documented eye exam (per HEDIS criteria) were identified and slated for a teleophthalmology based exam either at their next PCP visit or were scheduled for a diabetic management nurse visit where they received the teleophthalmology exam.

A patient care technician or nurse obtained identifying information, assessed visual acuity, and took monoscopic digital photos of the eye. The latter were uploaded to a secure cloud-server. After the images were read by a single ophthalmologist (RSR) from the university eye institute within 1-day, electronic reports describing presence of any disease and visual acuity were uploaded to the cloud-server. If the images were not of sufficient quality to grade for disease, about 8% of cases, a notation stating this was recorded in the report and the patient was recommended to see an eye care provider within-3 months. Concurrently, an e-mail notification that the report was available was sent to the clinic’s contact person. Once downloaded from the web portal it was added to the electronic medical record (EMR). These results and recommended follow-up duration for an eye doctor visit were shared with the patient via phone within a few days. Patients did not get billed for this program.

Participants

Participants were recruited in 2017 using convenience sampling from the 2 primary care clinic settings. Eligible participants were identified by clinic staff through a review of EMRs as having diabetes and being someone who would be medically and cognitively fit to interview or participate in a focus group conducted in English. They also either had a dilated eye exam, been assessed via teleophthalmology, or had not seen an eye doctor in at least the last two years. The clinic staff asked eligible participants if they would be interested in the study either in person or by phone. Interested participants were contacted via phone by the study staff to schedule a convenient time for a focus group or an interview, but not both. Eligible participants were at least 18 years old and had diabetes. Individuals were excluded if they did not speak, read and write English, or reported that they were legally blind when asked during a phone screening interview. The focus groups and interviews were conducted in English and participants needed to be able to see how a digital camera could take a picture of the retina as depicted in an on-line video.

Out of the 90 patients identified by the clinic who were reachable and eligible for a prescreening phone interview, 42 agreed to participate, and 23 participated and completed the study. Based on their utilization of eye exam, participants were categorized into the following groups: experience with teleophthalmology (n = 7) or no experience with teleophthalmology (n = 16). A third group (those who had not had a dilated eye exam in the last two years and had not had experience with teleophthalmology) was identified by clinic staff as potential subjects, but none of these patients participated in a focus group or were interviewed when asked. Detailed methods are reported using the COREQ checklist [32].

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews and 2 focus groups were conducted from April to July 2017 by a facilitator and a research assistant in the two primary care settings, participants’ homes, or another location as preferred by the participant. The focus groups and interviews were conducted by two female master’s degree holding doctoral students in human development who had experience conducting focus groups, interviews, and performing qualitative and qualitative assessments in previous clinically oriented research studies. There was no prior relationship between the focus group or interview facilitators and study participants. At the start of the focus group or interview, the facilitators discussed the study purpose, their credentials, and role. Family members of patients could be present but could not participate in the focus groups or interviews.

Each interview/focus group lasted approximately 45–60 minutes, facilitated by an interview guide (on-line supplementary appendix S1 Text). Participants agreed to be audio-recorded. These were transcribed by a professional transcriptionist. Transcriptions and field notes taken during and after the focus groups and interviews were used in the data analysis. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached.

In both the interviews and focus groups, participants first completed a brief (~10-minutes) self-administered survey [All relevant data underlying this study are within the paper. The full survey data can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3550069] in English with open and closed ended items that were derived from the behavioral risk factors survey study [33] and previously published literature on the perception and satisfaction of teleophthalmology programs and obtaining dilated eye exams among patients with diabetes [31], but was not pilot tested. The survey including the following sections and is detailed in supplemental material: Demographic information (7-items), health information (6-items), personal views on the importance of eye care, having a dilated eye exam (5-items), and perceived value of teleophthalmology (9 in dilated exam group and 7-items in teleophthalmology group) (S1 Text). Before completing the teleophthalmology focused section, participants were shown a 3-minute video (https://youtu.be/URqAoD3oap4) on teleophthalmology based examination for diabetic retinopathy similar to the program implemented for our population. They were informed that 1) the intervention served as a limited examination to promptly detect eye disease with diabetic patients, and that 2) it did not replace a comprehensive diabetic eye exam that they would receive from an eye doctor but was a recommended alternative if they could not or had not seen an eye doctor for a dilated eye exam in the past year. Participants who experienced teleophthalmology completed two questions specific to their experience.

Participants in the dilated eye exam only group (i.e., no experience with teleophthalmology) were asked about their comfort with using teleophthalmology if it were to be offered by their primary care office and if they would ask their PCP about the teleophthalmology program. Both groups were asked “if you had to pay for the camera-screening out of pocket, how much would you be willing to pay?”

Upon completing the survey, responses to sections on personal views and perceived value of dilated eye exams and teleophthalmology were the basis for discussion among participants where they shared their views with the group. While the survey responses for willingness to pay (WTP) had specific dollar values corresponding to the standard insurance co-pays for the local patient population seen in the clinics, subsequent discussion elicited more detail on what participants were willing to pay.

Data analysis

Participant demographics were analyzed using means and standard deviation for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Group differences were assessed using ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical or Fisher’s exact for smaller sample groupings. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. SPSS (version 24) was used for quantitative data analysis.

Open-ended questions and transcribed data from focus groups and interviews were coded using thematic analysis by two of the authors (RSR, SY). This process involved identifying passages linked to the questions asked in sections 3 and 4 of the survey. First, each coder individually evaluated each response on a line-by-line basis circling key phrases that corresponded with patient perspectives pertinent to the discussion. Then the coder looked for how they were grouped by relevant themes. After the individual coding process, the coders met and reviewed each theme for agreements/disagreements. The disagreements were addressed by going back to the data and recoding it as a group.

Results

Participant characteristics

Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. The 23 participants all had physician diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Seven had undergone teleophthalmology to assess for diabetic retinopathy in their primary care provider’s office (teleophthalmology group). The dilated exam only group consisted of 16 participants who only had a dilated eye exam with an eye doctor to check for diabetic retinopathy. The teleophthalmology group was slightly younger (p < .01), more likely to be employed (p < .05), and less likely to have an eye doctor (p<0.02). Half of both groups reported some difficulty with distance vision, even with glasses. The majority in both groups also reported trouble with reading while wearing reading glasses.

Tab. 1. Participant characteristics (N = 23).
<i>Participant characteristics (N = 23)</i>.

Main results

Tables 2 and 3 compare the results of open-ended written responses and the subsequent discussion including barriers to obtaining a dilated eye exam, the benefits of teleophthalmology, potential barriers to receiving teleophthalmology, and each participant’s WTP for the teleophthalmology service. The reported results are aggregated as responses were similar between the two groups.

Tab. 2. Perceived barriers to receiving dilated eye exam and perceptions of teleophthalmology.
Perceived barriers to receiving dilated eye exam and perceptions of teleophthalmology.
Tab. 3. Willingness to pay for teleophthalmology exam during a primary care provider office visit.
<i>Willingness to pay for teleophthalmology exam during a primary care provider office visit</i>.

Barriers to obtaining dilated eye exams

Using surveys followed by facilitated discussion allowed for richer and more varied responses. During the discussion, almost all participants strongly voiced the lack of insurance coverage for medical care, being on a fixed income, and having a limited budget as barriers to obtaining a dilated eye exam. Cost of care and the cost to access care were main themes in all interviews and focus groups. The discussion also highlighted two additional barriers: transportation challenges and being asymptomatic. Participants commented on the difficulty of convenient parking and safety driving post dilation. Many also spoke about ‘forgetting to make an appointment’ or ‘putting off making an appointment’ especially if they did not have visual or eye symptoms.

Value of a teleophthalmology exam

Participants listed convenience (48%) and the ability to detect disease early to give oneself ‘peace of mind’ by knowing and being educated on the status of one’s eye health (35%) as reasons to have a teleophthalmology exam at their primary care visit. The value of teleophthalmology included its quickness and convenience, a ‘one stop shop.’ In addition, participants acknowledged value in not only giving reassurance that there was no vision threatening retinopathy but also in allowing for early detection of disease so that ‘something could be done about it’ to allow for potential treatment to prevent vision loss. Personalized education from having the provider review the findings in the retinal photos to understand the disease better was also of value.

Most respondents reported their WTP as the amount of their usual visit copay for the teleophthalmology exam, but actual costs for the exam were not discussed. More than half indicated that they would be WTP $30 or $40 for the teleophthalmology service on their survey. In this small sample, there was no significant relationship between WTP and type of health care insurance, eye care coverage, or employment status. (Table 3)

While missing primary care appointments or ‘not showing up’ and potential ‘poor customer service’ were noted as potential barriers by a few participants, everyone focused on cost of care as the primary barrier during the discussion. Many emphasized that they would ‘want to know the cost’ of the teleophthalmology examination before deciding to have it done. Participants would be more likely to participate if they knew that their insurance would pay for the service as they were ‘tight on budget’ and living ‘dollar to dollar.’ Despite noting limitations in what they could actually afford, participants expressed value for having eye exams to ensure good vision with a few stating they would ‘pay $100 to $200’ for an exam ‘if [they] could afford it.’

The overall experience of participants who had a teleophthalmology exam was positive. They expressed confidence in primary care staff skills for conducting the examination and labeled it as a ‘helpful service.’ Teleophthalmology fit well in their primary care visit and many stated it was an ‘excellent experience.’ They would recommend teleophthalmology to a friend and would be willing to have such an exam again. In addition, everyone in the dilated exam only group, noted that they would be ‘comfortable’ with having a teleophthalmology based examination at their PCP office.

Although three (13%) said they would prefer an in person dilated eye exam with an eye doctor over a teleophthalmology exam, 20 participants (87%) expressed interest in having a teleophthalmology exam at their PCP office if it was recommended by their PCP.

Discussion

Using a qualitative approach, we found that a low income, urban, largely African American sample of patients with type 2 diabetes greatly valued having PCP based teleophthalmology, would recommend such a service, and were willing to pay at least the amount of their usual copay. Cost was an important influencer of value. We are the first to report on WTP as an indicator of the perceived value of teleophthalmology to patients. Our study also highlights the importance of having a facilitated discussion to qualitatively assess knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes among US low-income predominantly African American patients with diabetes as such discussion allowed for richer and more varied responses than surveys requiring participants to answer questions on their own.

We not only identified many of the same barriers to obtaining a dilated eye exam as other US based studies [1820, 31, 32, 34, 35], but also demonstrated the value of a teleophthalmology service using nonmydriatic retinal cameras in PCP practices in overcoming such barriers. The most common stated value was convenience and the ability to overcome transportation and time management issue, as noted in other international and US studies, including a recent study of a white Caucasian rural population in Wisconsin [21, 23, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35]. Other value included ease of use, ability to detect disease before visual symptoms, and the knowledge provided by the photos and technicians about retinopathy and eye disease, which have been only reported thus far in international studies [2127]. In addition, the use of nonmydriatic cameras without dilating the eye and avoiding temporary vision impairment was seen as a major advantage of teleophthalmology as noted in the recent Wisconsin study [30]. PCP recommendation and stronger PCP-patient relationships were important patient motivators for using teleophthalmology, similar to other studies from Norway [21] and Wisconsin, USA [20, 30].

The cost of care was the major barrier to obtaining dilated eye exams, as seen in other US based studies [16, 1820, 31, 3437]. Cost was universally cited as a potential barrier to obtaining a teleophthalmology based nonmydriatic camera exam even if conveniently offered in the primary care office. Educating patients on the potential costs and value of having a teleophthalmology based examination versus going to see an eye doctor for a dilated comprehensive eye exam may be helpful to encourage informed discussions on eye care especially in low income, underserved populations. Combining patient preferences and WTP can provide a more holistic picture of value for a health service such as teleophthalmology by incorporating economic evaluations, such as cost-utility analysis [38]. A recent systematic review of economic studies demonstrated increased cost savings for using teleophthalmology for retinal screening in patients with diabetes versus traditional exams with an eye doctor especially in populations with a higher prevalence of diabetic retinopathy, including minority, low income groups included in our study [39].

While teleophthalmology was well received, there were some who expressed a strong preference to see their eye doctor. These individuals were among the older ones in the group. They expressed valuing their relationship with their eye care provider and questioned the level of expertise and thoroughness of exam afforded by the primary care based teleophthalmology, a finding similar to a recent study of US Veterans [31]. Thus, ensuring that patients, especially older adults, are comfortable with the quality and reliability of teleophthalmology is important. A recent study among American Indians demonstrated that although the digital divide may be greater among low income minority groups, younger American Indian adults were more familiar with digital communication and technology and may be more apt to adopt such methods for accessing health care [40]. The participants in our study who had experienced teleophthalmology were also younger than those who just has a dilated eye exam, which may also have influenced its overwhelming acceptance in our study.

Strengths of our study include having feedback from those who have used teleophthalmology to evaluate their eyes for diabetic retinopathy. It is also the first known to ask a potential customer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the teleophthalmology service. Consumer WTP has been studied for other telemedicine services, especially teledermatology, whose store and forward model is similar to the present one used for teleophthalmology [41]. Quicker and more convenient access to the expertise of a dermatologist with increased chance of receiving an accurate diagnosis in a timely fashion were related to higher WTP [41, 42]. Furthermore, the use of a pre-discussion questionnaire followed by facilitated dialogue in our study allowed for richer and more varied responses than either option alone. While many studies have looked at attitudes, beliefs and knowledge around eye care and having a dilated eye exam, especially for underserved US populations, our study is among the few to provide insight on the value and perceptions of teleophthalmology in US low income, minority populations.

Limitations of this study include factors pertaining to the composition of our focus groups and interviews and the use of convenience sampling. We also restricted our population to English speakers who were not legally blind. The small number in the teleophthalmology group limited statistical comparisons. Interpreting our participants’ WTP should be done while considering that all participants expressed the importance of an eye exam and had sought eye care within the last two years. We also chose to ask if participants were WTP discrete values from $0 to $40 in our pre-discussion survey, which may have limited our ability to elicit a full range of WTP values. However, encouraging dialogue around their WTP during the discussion found participants’ WTP ranging from $0 to $100–200. Moreover, WTP and what one actually pays may not be the same [43].

Although teleophthalmology was universally seen as valuable by our participants, cost remains a formidable barrier to obtaining such care and to widespread implementation as recently reviewed by Liu at al. [44]. The issue of cost as a barrier to using teleophthalmology for patients and clinics appear to be unique to the US due to its diverse fee for service insurance system, with the exception of the Veterans Affairs Health System. A review of European studies using teleophthalmology to screen for a variety of eye conditions demonstrated substantial cost savings to their national health systems [45]. However, a review of the current state of teleophthalmology in the US by Rathi et al. noted significant gaps in insurance coverage for teleophthalmology among private and government insurers [46]. Further research to test the relation between a population’s price sensitivity and their value for convenience and other benefits provided by teleophthalmology to remotely diagnose eye disease is needed. In addition, the impact of various billing models, including value based and fee for service payments, on the adoption and sustainability of teleophthalmology should be explored. Such research will better elucidate the value of teleophthalmology and help support its use in non-eye care settings for various subsets of potential users.

Supporting information

S1 Text [docx]
Outline of pre-focus group questionnaire administered in preparation for focus group discussion.


Zdroje

1. Facts About Diabetic Eye Disease | National Eye Institute [Internet]. National Eye Institute. 2015 [cited 2018 Aug 21]. Available from: https://nei.nih.gov/health/diabetic/retinopathy

2. Singer DE, Nathan DM, Fogel HA, Schachat AP. Screening for diabetic retinopathy. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116(8):660–71. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-116-8-660 1546868

3. Network DRCR. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1193–1203. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414264 25692915

4. Avery RL, Pearlman J, Pieramici DJ, Rabena MD, Castellarin AA, Ma’an AN, et al. Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) in the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(10):1695–1705. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.064 17011951

5. Mukamel BD, Bresnick HG, Wang Q, Dickey FC. Barriers to compliance with screening guidelines for diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1999;6(1):61–72. doi: 10.1076/opep.6.1.61.1563 10384685

6. Lee PP, Feldman ZW, Ostermann J, Brown DS, Sloan FA. Longitudinal rates of annual eye examinations of persons with diabetes and chronic eye diseases. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(10):1952–9. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00817-0 14522771

7. Keenum Z, McGwin G, Witherspoon CD, Haller JA, Clark ME, Owsley C. Patients’ Adherence to Recommended Follow-up Eye Care After Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in a Publicly Funded County Clinic and Factors Associated With Follow-up Eye Care Use. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(11):1221–8. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.3081 27632231

8. Daskivich LP, Vasquez C, Martinez C, Tseng C-H, Mangione CM. Implementation and Evaluation of a Large-Scale Teleretinal Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(5):642–9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0204 28346590

9. Jani PD, Forbes L, Choudhury A, Preisser JS, Viera AJ, Garg S. Evaluation of Diabetic Retinal Screening and Factors for Ophthalmology Referral in a Telemedicine Network. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(7):706–14. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1150 28520833

10. Cavallerano JD, Bursell SE, Aiello LM. Telemedicine and Eye Examinations for Diabetic Retinopathy A Time to Maximize Real-World Outcomes. Health (N Y). 2011;17(10):814–837.

11. Silva PS, Aiello LP. Telemedicine and eye examinations for diabetic retinopathy: a time to maximize real-world outcomes. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(5):525–526. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0333 25742322

12. Anderson RM, Robins LS. How Do We Know? Reflections on qualitative research in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(9):1387–8. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.9.1387 9727880

13. Livingston P.M., McCarty C.A., Wood C.A., Harper A.C., Keeff J.E., Taylor H.R. Use of focus groups to identify health promotion strategies for the early detection of diabetic retinopathy. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;22(2):220–2.

14. Dawn AG, McGwin G, Lee PP. Patient Expectations Regarding Eye Care: Development and Results of the Eye Care Expectations Survey (ECES). Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(4):534–41. doi: 10.1001/archopht.123.4.534 15824228

15. Greenhalgh T, Helman C, Chowdhury AM. Health beliefs and folk models of diabetes in British Bangladeshis: a qualitative study. BMJ. 1998;316(7136):978–83. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7136.978 9550958

16. Hartnett ME, Key IJ, Loyacano NM, Horswell RL, DeSalvo KB. Perceived Barriers to Diabetic Eye Care: Qualitative Study of Patients and Physicians. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(3):387–91. doi: 10.1001/archopht.123.3.387 15767483

17. Coyne KS. The impact of diabetic retinopathy: perspectives from patient focus groups. Fam Pract. 2004;21(4):447–53. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh417 15249536

18. Owsley C, McGwin G, Scilley K, Girkin CA, Phillips JM, Searcey K. Perceived Barriers to Care and Attitudes about Vision and Eye Care: Focus Groups with Older African Americans and Eye Care Providers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(7):2797–802. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-0107 16799016

19. Ellish NJ, Royak-Schaler R, Passmore SR, Higginbotham EJ. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about dilated eye examinations among African-Americans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(5):1989–1994. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-0934 17460251

20. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Shiyanbola OO, Swearingen R, Carlson JN, Jacobson NA, et al. Factors influencing patient adherence with diabetic eye screening in rural communities: A qualitative study. PloS One. 2018;13(11):e0206742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206742 30388172

21. Rotvold G-H, Knarvik U, Johansen MA, Fossen K. Telemedicine screening for diabetic retinopathy: staff and patient satisfaction. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(2):109–13. doi: 10.1258/135763303321327984 12699582

22. Kurji K, Kiage D, Rudnisky CJ, Damji KF. Improving Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in Africa: Patient Satisfaction with Teleophthalmology Versus Ophthalmologist-Based Screening. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013;20(1):56–60. doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.106388 23580853

23. Kumari Rani P, Raman R, Manikandan M, Mahajan S, Paul PG, Sharma T. Patient satisfaction with tele-ophthalmology versus ophthalmologist-based screening in diabetic retinopathy. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12(3):159–60. doi: 10.1258/135763306776738639 16638238

24. Paul PG, Raman R, Rani PK, Deshmukh H, Sharma T. Patient satisfaction levels during teleophthalmology consultation in rural South India. Telemed J E Health. 2006;12(5):571–578. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2006.12.571 17042711

25. Surendran TS, Raman R. Teleophthalmology in diabetic retinopathy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(2):262–266. doi: 10.1177/1932296814522806 24876576

26. Luzio S, Hatcher S, Zahlmann G, Mazik L, Morgan M, Liesenfeld B, et al. Feasibility of using the TOSCA telescreening procedures for diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med. 2004;21(10):1121–1128. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01305.x 15384960

27. Wu Y, Wei Z, Yao H, Zhao Z, Ngoh LH, Deng RH, et al. TeleOph: A Secure Real-Time Teleophthalmology System. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2010;14(5):1259–66. doi: 10.1109/TITB.2010.2058124 20667812

28. Hipwell AE, Sturt J, Lindenmeyer A, Stratton I, Gadsby R, O’Hare P, et al. Attitudes, access and anguish: a qualitative interview study of staff and patients’ experiences of diabetic retinopathy screening. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e005498. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005498 25510885

29. Ogunyemi O, George S, Patty L, Teklehaimanot S, Baker R. Teleretinal screening for diabetic retinopathy in six Los Angeles urban safety-net clinics: final study results. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. American Medical Informatics Association. 2013;2013:1082.

30. Liu Y, Zupan NJ, Swearingen R, Jacobson N, Carlson JN, Mahoney JE, et al. Identification of barriers, facilitators and system-based implementation strategies to increase teleophthalmology use for diabetic eye screening in a rural US primary care clinic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e022594. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022594 30782868

31. Valikodath NG, Leveque TK, Wang SY, Lee PP, Newman-Casey PA, Hansen SO, et al. Patient attitudes toward telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy. Telemed E-Health. 2017;23(3):205–212.

32. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937

33. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Population Health. BRFSS Questionnaire [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Jul 9]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/index.htm

34. Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BEK. Factors Associated With Having Eye Examinations in Persons With Diabetes. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4(6):529. doi: 10.1001/archfami.4.6.529 7773429

35. Paz SH, Varma R, Klein R, Wu J, Azen SP. Noncompliance with Vision Care Guidelines in Latinos with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(8):1372–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.04.018 16769120

36. Liu Y, Swearingen R. Diabetic Eye Screening: Knowledge and Perspectives from Providers and Patients. Curr Diab Rep. 2017;17(10):94. doi: 10.1007/s11892-017-0911-2 28856510

37. Walker EA, Basch CE, Howard CJ, Zybert PA, Kromholz WN, Shamoon H. Incentives and barriers to retinopathy screening among African-Americans with diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 1997;11(5):298–306. doi: 10.1016/s1056-8727(96)00121-3 9424171

38. Snoswell C, Smith AC, Scuffham PA, Whitty JA. Economic evaluation strategies in telehealth: Obtaining a more holistic valuation of telehealth interventions. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(9):792–796. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16671407 27789615

39. Sharafeldin N, Kawaguchi A, Sundaram A, et al. Review of economic evaluations of teleophthalmology as a screening strategy for chronic eye disease in adults. Br J Ophthalmol (England). 2018;102(11):1485–1491

40. Mathieson et al. Access to Digital Communication Technology and Perceptions of Telemedicine for Patient Education among American Indian Patients with Diabetes. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2017;28(4):1522–1536. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2017.0131 29176112

41. Snoswell CL, et al. Direct-to-consumer mobile teledermoscopy for skin cancer screening: Preliminary results demonstrating willingness-to-pay in Australia. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(10):683–689. doi: 10.1177/1357633X18799582 30343653

42. Qureshi, Abrar A., Brandling-Bennett Heather A, Eve Wittenberg, Chen Suephy C., Sober Arthur J., et al. Willingness-to-Pay Stated Preferences for Telemedicine versus in-Person Visits in Patients with a History of Psoriasis or Melanoma. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 2006;12(6):639–643. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2006.12.639 17250485

43. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10(1):39–52. doi: 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<39::aid-hec563>3.0.co;2-e 11180568

44. Liu Y, Torres Diaz A, Benkert R. Scaling Up Teleophthalmology for Diabetic Eye Screening: Opportunities for Widespread Implementation in the USA. Curr Diab Rep. 2019 Aug 2;19(9):74. doi: 10.1007/s11892-019-1187-5 31375932

45. Labiris G, Panagiotopoulou EK, Kozobolis VP. A systematic review of teleophthalmological studies in Europe. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018;11(2):314–325. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.02.22 29487825

46. Rathi S, Tsui E, Mehta N, Zahid S, Schuman JS. The Current State of Teleophthalmology in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(12):1729–1734. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.026 28647202


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1

Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
nový kurz

Betablokátory a Ca antagonisté z jiného úhlu
Autori: prof. MUDr. Michal Vrablík, Ph.D., MUDr. Petr Janský

Autori: doc. MUDr. Petr Čáp, Ph.D.

Farmakoterapie akutní a chronické bolesti

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa