MedElevator
Войти в исследования Ophthalmology · 2013
Screening for diabetic retinopathy with or without a copayment in a randomized controlled trial: influence of the inverse care law.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Lian Jin Xiao, McGhee Sarah M, Gangwani Rita A, Hedley Anthony J, Lam Cindy Lo Kuen, Yap Maurice Keng Hung, Lai Wico W, Chu Daniel Wai Sing, Wong David S H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the inverse care law operates in a screening program for diabetic retinopathy (DR) based on fee for service in Hong Kong.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
PARTICIPANTS: All those with type 1 or 2 diabetes from 2 clinics were recruited.
INTERVENTION: Diabetic retinopathy screening with a small copayment versus free access in a publicly funded family medicine service.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of screening and severity of DR detected. Association between these outcome variables and independent variables were determined using multivariate logistic regression models and reported as odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS: After randomization, 1387 subjects in the free group and 1379 subjects in the pay group were eligible for screening, and 94.9% (1316/1387) and 92.6% (1277/1379), respectively, agreed to participate in the study. The offer of screening was accepted by 94.8% (1247/1316) in the free group and 91.2% (1164/1277) in the pay group, and the final uptake ratios were 88.5% (1165/1316) and 82.4% (1052/1277), respectively (Pearson chi = 19.74, P<0.001). Being in the pay group was associated with a lower uptake of screening than being in the free group (OR, 0.59; confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.74) and a lower detection rate of DR (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.60-0.90) after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Subjects with higher socioeconomic status were more likely to attend screening and had a lower prevalence of DR detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The inverse care law seems to operate in a preventive intervention when a relatively small copayment is applied. There is a case for making effective preventive services free of charge.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
PARTICIPANTS: All those with type 1 or 2 diabetes from 2 clinics were recruited.
INTERVENTION: Diabetic retinopathy screening with a small copayment versus free access in a publicly funded family medicine service.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of screening and severity of DR detected. Association between these outcome variables and independent variables were determined using multivariate logistic regression models and reported as odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS: After randomization, 1387 subjects in the free group and 1379 subjects in the pay group were eligible for screening, and 94.9% (1316/1387) and 92.6% (1277/1379), respectively, agreed to participate in the study. The offer of screening was accepted by 94.8% (1247/1316) in the free group and 91.2% (1164/1277) in the pay group, and the final uptake ratios were 88.5% (1165/1316) and 82.4% (1052/1277), respectively (Pearson chi = 19.74, P<0.001). Being in the pay group was associated with a lower uptake of screening than being in the free group (OR, 0.59; confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.74) and a lower detection rate of DR (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.60-0.90) after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Subjects with higher socioeconomic status were more likely to attend screening and had a lower prevalence of DR detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The inverse care law seems to operate in a preventive intervention when a relatively small copayment is applied. There is a case for making effective preventive services free of charge.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Blood GlucoseBlood PressureDeductibles and CoinsuranceDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, PublicHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysicians, FamilyPreventive Health ServicesSeverity of Illness IndexSocial ClassUncompensated CareVisual Acuity