Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2012
A novel, low-cost method of enrolling infants at risk for Retinopathy of Prematurity in centers with no screening program: the REDROP study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vinekar Anand, Avadhani Kavitha, Dogra Mangat, Sharma Praveen, Gilbert Clare, Braganza Sherine, Shetty Bhujang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report the first-year results of the Red Card for Retinopathy of Prematurity (REDROP) study, a low-cost interim strategy to enroll infants into retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening where limited expertise exists, piloted at a multi-specialty general hospital.
METHODS: Red "warning" cards were placed alongside green "congratulations" cards above the weighing scale in the neonatal unit. Staff weighing the newborn were instructed to give either one of the cards to each mother depending on the weight of the child (≤ 2000 g, red, and > 2000 g, green). Red cards contained information (tri-lingual) about ROP and the venue of screening. Green cards contained general pediatric eye education and recipients were not called. A portion of the red card with the infant's birth date and mother's contact number was retained and collected weekly by volunteers. Mothers were reminded on the mobile phone to come for ROP screening. Screening and treatment were performed free.
RESULTS: During the study period, 224 of 805 (27.8%) infants were born ≤ 2000 g. Of these, 169 (75.4%) survived and were eligible for the red card; 91 (53.8%) received it. Of these, 43 (47.3%) infants completed ROP screening, 14 (32.6%) had some stage ROP, and three (6.9%) required laser treatment. The main reason for the lower turnout for screening was the inability to contact mothers on their provided phone numbers.
CONCLUSIONS: REDROP demonstrates the feasibility of this low-cost method of enrolling unscreened infants into a ROP program. The cost of enrolling each infant was less than 5 rupees (US$0.10). Suggested strategies to improve use require multi-center validation.
METHODS: Red "warning" cards were placed alongside green "congratulations" cards above the weighing scale in the neonatal unit. Staff weighing the newborn were instructed to give either one of the cards to each mother depending on the weight of the child (≤ 2000 g, red, and > 2000 g, green). Red cards contained information (tri-lingual) about ROP and the venue of screening. Green cards contained general pediatric eye education and recipients were not called. A portion of the red card with the infant's birth date and mother's contact number was retained and collected weekly by volunteers. Mothers were reminded on the mobile phone to come for ROP screening. Screening and treatment were performed free.
RESULTS: During the study period, 224 of 805 (27.8%) infants were born ≤ 2000 g. Of these, 169 (75.4%) survived and were eligible for the red card; 91 (53.8%) received it. Of these, 43 (47.3%) infants completed ROP screening, 14 (32.6%) had some stage ROP, and three (6.9%) required laser treatment. The main reason for the lower turnout for screening was the inability to contact mothers on their provided phone numbers.
CONCLUSIONS: REDROP demonstrates the feasibility of this low-cost method of enrolling unscreened infants into a ROP program. The cost of enrolling each infant was less than 5 rupees (US$0.10). Suggested strategies to improve use require multi-center validation.