From U Hospital of Wales: Second, eerily-similar-to-first paper in the same journal about diabetic retinopathy screening

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22414336

Diabet Med. 2012 Mar 13. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03636.x. [Epub ahead of print] 

Preferences of people with diabetes for diabetic retinopathy screening: a discrete choice experiment.

Yeo ST, Edwards RT, Fargher EA, Luzio SD, Thomas RL, Owens DR.

Source

Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, IMSCaR, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea Diabetes Research Unit, Centre for Endocrine and Diabetes Sciences, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

Abstract

Aims:  

The ever-increasing prevalence of diabetes places pressure on the provision of diabetic retinopathy screening services. As the first study of its kind, we aimed to determine preferences for diabetic retinopathy screening in people withdiabetes and to examine the trade-offs between frequency of screening and other service attributes. 

Methods: 

A questionnaire including a discrete choice experiment was administered to people (n = 198) attending diabetic retinopathy screening at eight clinics across Wales, United Kingdom The discrete choice experiment contained eight pairwise choices in which screening provision was described by five attributes: frequency of screening; travel time; results time; ability of screening to detect other changes; and explanation of results. Data were analysed using logistic regression techniques. 

Results:  

We gained a response rate of 86.4% from the 198 questionnaires administered at clinics; 160 complete responses were analysed. Respondents valued four out of the five attributes [ability of screening to detect other changes (P = 0.000), explanation of results (P = 0.024), frequency of screening (P = 0.000) and travel time (P = 0.007)]. Results time was insignificant (P = 0.122). Respondents were willing to wait an additional 12, 2 and 1 month between screening tests to have a test that was able to detect additional changes, to have their results explained in person rather than by letter and to have a 15-min reduction in travel time, respectively. 

Conclusions: 

Respondents were willing to accept a greater screening interval, as long as preferences for other attributes of service provision (ability of screening to detect other changes, explanation of results and travel time) were made available.