Evaluating Adherence to Diabetic Retinopathy Care in an Urban Ophthalmology Clinic Utilizing the Compliance With Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey

Introduction The objective of this study was to identify barriers that affect adherence to the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in an urban ophthalmology clinic. Patient beliefs regarding diabetic eye care, transportation to the eye clinic, the COVID-19 pandemic, and treatment with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections were investigated. Materials and methods The original Compliance with Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey (CADEES) included 44 statements designed with a 5-point Likert scale to assess patients’ beliefs and understanding of their eye health and the importance of diabetic eye examinations. This survey was modified to include additional statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and free-response questions about transportation barriers and patients’ subjective experiences with PRP or anti-VEGF injections. A total of 365 patients with a diagnosis of any stage of DR from SLUCare Ophthalmology were identified as potential participants to complete the telephone survey. Patients were classified as non-adherent if they did not have a dilated eye examination within the past year, missed a scheduled follow-up appointment for DR care within the past year, or missed an appointment for anti-VEGF injections or PRP. The mean Likert scores for each CADEES statement were compared between the adherent and non-adherent groups using independent samples t-tests. Demographics and clinical indicators were also reported and compared between the two groups. Results Out of 365 patients, 68 completed the modified CADEES. Twenty-nine patients were adherent, and 39 patients were non-adherent. Results from six of the 54 CADEES statements were significantly different between the adherent and non-adherent groups. These statements addressed patients’ perception of their eye health, self-confidence in making an eye appointment, knowing someone with diabetic eye complications, self-confidence in controlling blood sugar, ability to use public transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and prioritizing eye health during the pandemic. There were no significant differences in clinical indicators or demographics between the adherent and non-adherent groups. Of the participants, 39.7% offered reasons for why transportation to the eye clinic was difficult. Patients suggested three novel reasons for missing eye appointments that were not specifically addressed in the CADEES. Fourteen unique barriers were reported for non-adherence with PRP or anti-VEGF injections. Conclusions The CADEES is a thorough tool for evaluating social barriers impacting adherence with DR appointments in an urban ophthalmology clinic. The survey did not identify any clinical or demographic risk factors for non-adherence in this patient population. Decreased patient self-efficacy may lead to non-adherence with the management of DR. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the adherence of a small percentage of patients.