A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Screening for diabetic retinopathy with or without a copayment in a randomized controlled trial: influence of the inverse care law. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigated the impact of the inverse care law on diabetic retinopathy screening in Hong Kong by comparing a free service to a fee-for-service model.
  • Participants included individuals with type 1 or 2 diabetes from two clinics, and the main outcomes measured were screening uptake and severity of diabetic retinopathy detected.
  • Results indicated a significantly lower screening uptake and detection rate of diabetic retinopathy among those who had to pay, suggesting that costs can deter access and highlighting the need for free preventive health services.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.024DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diabetic retinopathy
12
randomized controlled
8
inverse care
8
care law
8
free group
8
pay group
8
screening
6
screening diabetic
4
retinopathy copayment
4
copayment randomized
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!