Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 2244   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 478-483

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of diabetic retinopathy among physicians in Northwestern Nigeria


1 Department of Ophthalmology, Bayero University Kano, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria
2 Neurology Unit, Department of Medicine, Bayero University Kano, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria
3 Department of Medicine, Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria
4 Department of Medicine, Mohammed Abdullahi Wase Specialist Hospital, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria
5 Department of Medicine, Federal Medical Centre, Jigawa State, Nigeria
6 Department of Internal Medicine, Bayero University Kano, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria

Date of Acceptance18-Jan-2018
Date of Web Publication02-Apr-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. A Ibrahim
Department of Medicine, Neurology Unit, Bayero University Kano, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, No 1 Zaria Road, Kano State
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_266_17

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of preventable blindness in the productive population that poses a considerable global public health burden. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of DR screening among physicians in Northwestern Nigeria. Materials and Methods: Survey responses were obtained from 105 physicians in 4 tertiary hospitals using a Likert scale questionnaire. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Principal component analysis was used for data reduction and grouping with the varimax rotation method, and the factors were extracted based on an Eigenvalue >1. Results: Most of the respondents (78.8%) were aware of the most effective method of delaying the onset of DR and frequency of eye examination (94.1%). Lack of ophthalmoscopes (70.6%) and dilating eye drops (50.6%) form important barriers to performing a good eye examination. Conclusion: DR screening among physicians practicing in Northwestern Nigeria was suboptimal, which prompts the need for improved training of physicians managing persons with diabetes on eye examination in a bid to strengthen DR screening and reduce the burden of visual impairment in our environment.

Keywords: Attitude, diabetic retinopathy, knowledge, ophthalmologist, practice


How to cite this article:
Abdulsalam S, Ibrahim A, Saidu H, Muazu M, Aliyu U T, Umar H I, Gezawa I D, Owolabi L F. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of diabetic retinopathy among physicians in Northwestern Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21:478-83

How to cite this URL:
Abdulsalam S, Ibrahim A, Saidu H, Muazu M, Aliyu U T, Umar H I, Gezawa I D, Owolabi L F. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of diabetic retinopathy among physicians in Northwestern Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Jan 17];21:478-83. Available from: http://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2018/21/4/478/229088




   Introduction Top


Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of preventable blindness in the productive adult working population and a common microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus (DM).[1] It poses a considerable global public health burden, because of the growing number of people with DM in developing countries, despite its low prevalence at present.[2],[3]

Meta-analysis of large-scale studies has reported a pooled prevalence of DR of any severity to be about 30% while the risk of visual impairment is approximately 10%.[4] The national blindness and visual impairment survey conducted in Nigeria between January 2005 and June 2007 reported a DR prevalence of 20.5%, of which 51.4% had macular edema and 10.8% had proliferative disease.[5] In addition, an overall prevalence of 36% was also reported in an earlier study conducted among persons with DM attending a tertiary hospital in our region.[6] Visual loss and blindness from DM that often occurs during the productive years of life is usually associated with loss of independence and lack of mobility,[7] which may limit their earning potentials or even preclude them from gainful employment.[8]

Strategies of regular screening, early detection, and prompt treatment of DR have been shown to reduce the risks and therefore the burden of visual impairment and blindness from DM.[9],[10] Current guidelines recommend that persons with DM be screened annually.[11],[12] However, as the burden of the disease is projected to outstrip the growth of the ophthalmology workforce that performs examinations, more pragmatic methods of screening must be evaluated. Systematic review of evidences suggests that single-field nonmydriatic photography is the gold standard, being the most effective screening strategy (high sensitivity 87%–97% and specificity of 83%–92%) for detection of sight-threatening DR, despite variability in terms of reference standard by most screening guidelines.[13] It is highly cost-effective in screening for greater number of people but technically more demanding and highly susceptible to media opacity-related failure when compared to direct ophthalmoscopy. To implement sustainable guidelines in low-resource settings (i.e., typically characterized by a lack of funds to cover for basic health care costs, on individual or societal basis), an approach that has been proposed was to “task-shift” to increase reliance on nonophthalmic workforce in the process of DR screening using ophthalmoscopy. In many countries, nonophthalmologist physicians usually conduct the first level of screening, by performing retinal examination using direct ophthalmoscopy.[14],[15] The lack of a robust and coordinated structure for eye care service in our low resource setting was identified as a major barrier to routine diabetic retinopathy screening. Having to see another doctor (ophthalmologist) usually presents another burden to the patient when considering the out-of-pocket payments for health.[16] Studies have shown that early detection and prompt treatment in DR is effective in the prevention of blindness, which, however, is lacking in most parts of the world, more so in Sub-Saharan Africa where diabetic patients do not receive regular fundus examinations as recommended by the International Council of Ophthalmologist (ICO) and American Diabetes Association (ADA).[17]

Tight glycemic control only with insulin and oral hypoglycemic agents has been shown to significantly reduce the risk for retinopathy and its progression.[18],[19] Insulin therapy predominantly used in the management of type I DM has been shown to have a local impact on ocular tissue by restoration of retinal insulin receptor signaling cascade and rod photoreceptor function. Indeed, while there are conflicting reports on the benefit of antihypertensive therapies alone with either angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in the prevention of DR, combined control of hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and blood pressure has been shown clearly to delay the onset and slow the progression of DR.[20],[21]

Our study, therefore, assessed the level of knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) of physicians to DR screening, practicing in Northwestern Nigeria managing persons with DM, to identify possible ways of improving eye care as part of the overall diabetes care.


   Materials and Methods Top


Study design

The study was a descriptive cross-sectional survey conducted between October 1, 2015, and December 14, 2015, in four tertiary health hospitals located in Northwestern Nigeria. They included Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital (AKTH), Mohammed Abdullahi Wase Specialist Hospital (MAWSH), Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital (MMSH) in Kano state, and Federal Medical Centre Birnin (FMCB) Kudu located in Jigawa State. Institutional approval was obtained from the hospital research and ethics committee before commencement of the study.

Study population

The study respondents were general practitioners (GPs), residents, and consultants in family medicine, internal medicine, and other doctors managing adult diabetes patients in these hospitals as the representative sample of nonophthalmologist physicians provides primary care. Ophthalmologists, doctors in anesthesia, obstetricians, gynecologists, pediatricians, and surgeons were excluded from the study. Participants were recruited by random sampling and a verbal consent was obtained from them.

Study protocol

The 20-item self-administered KAP questionnaire was developed using information from published literature on DR, including publications on guidelines by the International Council of Ophthalmology. The section on demographic data indicates the age, gender, medical cadre, number of years on cadre, specialty, and place of practice of the individual respondent. It also consists of three main KAP domains: the knowledge domain, which is concerned with general knowledge on DR; the attitude domain, which is concerned with the major changes seen in the eye due to diabetes and the logistics of funduscopy; and the practice domain concerned with the current individual practice of funduscopy, when to refer and training needed to build capacity of a nonophthalmologist.

The respondents completed the questionnaire without consulting any manuals, textbooks, or their colleagues during one of the continuous professional development/medical education (CPD/CME) programs for physicians in the presence of the investigators.

The knowledge questions have between 3 and 5 possible options for each question, while accepting only one right answer. Each correct response in the knowledge domain signifies good knowledge while a “wrong response and do not know” signifies poor knowledge.

The attitude questions were formatted according to a 5-point Likert scale. Positive attitude included those who “strongly agree and agree” to the questions while negative attitude included those who were “neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree” to the questions on DR screening.

Similarly, the 5-point Likert scale was applied to the practice questions. Those who responded with “not at all, rarely, and sometimes” were categorized to have negative behavior while those who responded with “frequently and always” were categorized to have good behavior to DR screening.

Statistical analysis

Sample size

The sample size for our study was 110, calculated using the Cochran's formula [22] and the finite population reduction factor formula.[23] The estimated number of physicians taking care of patients with diabetes was estimated as 150. Questionnaires were distributed by proportionate allocation based on the number of designated physicians per population (AKTH-55, MMSH-20, FMCB-20, and MAWSH-15).

Data analyses

The extracted data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2013 for cleaning and analyzed using the PASW® Statistics version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Qualitative data were described as proportions or percentages and comparison was made using Chi-square test. Statistically significant differences were considered when P < 0.05. Principal component analysis was done for data reduction and grouping the related variables into conceptually similar and statistically related groups. The extraction method was done using varimax rotation method, with factors extracted based on an Eigenvalue >1. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity were used, and the cutoff point for loading on each factor was 0.3 and P < 0.001, respectively. Percentage cutoff score for each domain was calculated using weighted average quartile scores, where the 50th percentile was accepted with respect to the physicians having either a good or a poor KAP on DR.


   Results Top


One hundred and ten questionnaires were distributed, out of which 105 were received, completely answered, representing a response rate of 95.4%. Consequently, these included 51 (48.6%), 15 (14.3%), 19 (18.1%), and 20 (19.0%) respondents from AKTH, MAWSH, MMSH, and FMCB, respectively.

Demographic variables

There were 42 (40.0%), 48 (45.7%), and 15 (14.3%) respondents in the 21–30 years, 31–40 years, and 41 years or older age categories, respectively. Twenty-six (24.8%) of the respondents were females. Of the respondents, eighty (76.2%) have ≤5 years of experience while 20 (19.0%) have between 6 and 10 years of experience on their job title. The remaining 5 (4.8%) respondents have >10 years' experience on their respective job title. Of these, 61 (58.1%) were medical officers/general practitioners, 37 (35.2%) were residents/senior medical officers, while 7 (6.7%) were in the consultant, principal, or chief medical officer cadre.

Reliability analysis

The internal consistency of questionnaire was 0.64 measured using the Cronbach's alpha score. The sample size for factor analysis was 20 items with 105 subjects. KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.470. Bartlett's test of sphericity demonstrated a satisfactory suitability of the data to factor analysis (P < 0.001) which showed that our variables were related and therefore suitable for structure detection. A loading cutoff >0.30 was adopted and eight factors were extracted. Each factor explained between 6.3% and 10.4% of the total variance. The eight factors extracted explained 67.6% of the total variance, revealing a strong factor structure. Extraction communality estimates of the variance in each variable accounted for by the components were all above 0.38–0.85.

Knowledge assessment of physicians to diabetic retinopathy screening

Most of the respondents, i.e., 67 (63.8%) were aware of the most effective methods of delaying the onset and progression of DR and how often persons with diabetes should have their eyes examined 80 (76.2%). However, there was a general paucity of knowledge on the gold standard for evaluating DR (4.8%) and on the ocular complications of DM (7.6%) in low-resource settings. Furthermore, less than a third (23.8%) of the respondents knew who are better placed to screen for DR in the outpatient clinic [Table 1].
Table 1: Knowledge of physicians to diabetic retinopathy

Click here to view


Attitude assessment of physicians to diabetic retinopathy screening

Majority of respondents agree that the greatest barriers to performing eye examination in persons with diabetes were lack of functional ophthalmoscopes, 75 (71.5%). However, most of them, i.e., 86 (81.9%) disagree that eye examination is not part of their job and would rather refer. It also showed variable duration of refresher training, which was essential to improve their DR screening skills by respondents outside what was suggested in the questionnaire [Table 2].
Table 2: Attitude of physicians to diabetic retinopathy

Click here to view


Practice assessment of physicians to diabetic retinopathy

Our study also showed that only about a third (36.2%) of the respondents perform routine eye examination on persons with diabetes visiting their facility. Furthermore, few (5.7%) of the respondents who perform routine eye examination detect retinal changes associated with diabetes with confidence. Response to the question on the routine use dilating eye drops was predominantly (90.5%) negative [Table 3].
Table 3: Practice of physicians to diabetic retinopathy

Click here to view


Relationship between knowledge, attitude, and practice of physicians to diabetic retinopathy

[Table 4] shows the correlation analysis between the knowledge and attitude (r = 0.136, P = 0.166), attitude and practice (r =-0.143, P = 0.144), and practice and knowledge (r = 0.086, P = 0.385) to DR screening in our study. Attitude showed negative correlation to practice but was not significant (P > 0.01).
Table 4: Correlation between the knowledge, attitude, and practice of physicians to Diabetic Retinopathy screening

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The study showed good knowledge among hospital physicians regarding the recommended frequency of eye examination in persons with DM and awareness about tight glycemic control as the most effective method for delaying the onset of DR. This, however, did not seem to translate to appropriate referral of patients for specialized ophthalmologist examinations, which is in contrast to a previous report by Preti et al.[24] In addition, it showed that knowledge about ocular complications of diabetes among our respondents was also suboptimal, which was comparable to a study in the US where 26% of the physicians interviewed were able to answer the questions regarding ocular complications of DM correctly.[25] This may be explained by the unaccustomed use of the ophthalmoscope by the respondents to routinely check for ocular complications of chronic diseases in their patients. It could also corroborate the less than optimal provision of refresher courses and updates to physicians on routine clinical skills in most of our health facilities outside the teaching hospitals.

Despite the unavailability of ophthalmoscopes and dilating eye drops in the clinics which were identified as the greatest barriers to performing routine funduscopy for persons with DM, the study showed that less than half of the respondents perform routine eye examination although our figures were higher than those reported from Brazil and southern India.[25],[26] Additional barriers faced by the Indian physicians included time constraints and lack of adequate training on screening for DR. Furthermore, it corroborates reports from Australia, with the addition of lack of confidence to funduscopy on the part of the physicians.[27] Although not captured in the questionnaire, most of those that perform routine funduscopy confessed that they do not use dilating drops because of the possible side effects of glaucoma, which is not easily excluded in routine DM clinic visits.

Given the fact that there were not enough ophthalmologists to screen for the increasing population of persons in resource-limited settings, one of the proposed solutions is the training of nonophthalmologist physicians to screen DR early and refer patients appropriately in refresher courses or incorporated into updates and CME/CPD programs. This has several advantages, being more cost-effective, and does not require additional staff or use of very expensive equipment. It would also reduce the burden of double clinic visits by the patient, thereby ensuring good compliance and continuity of care. For this to be effective, there is a need for better coordination of care through improved communication between the physicians and ophthalmologists, which has been shown to improve patients adherence to recommended care, thereby preventing DM-related eye complications.[28] There was no correlation between knowledge, attitude, and practice of the physicians in our study, which is in contrast to figures reported from a similar setting in the Middle East which showed positive correlation between the attitude and practice of physicians to DR screening, and may not be unrelated to a better system of health-care delivery, despite their lower level of knowledge.[15]

The strength of our study was it being multicentered in design and involving only physicians, which is quite difficult to undertake in our environment, because of their disproportionate distribution influenced by varied remunerations and social services in places where they practice. In addition, our study pioneered a preliminary survey on this important subject of knowledge, attitude, and practice of DM screening among physicians, which is currently not available in our environment.

Our findings, however, should be interpreted within the context of it being conducted in tertiary health-care facilities and therefore may not be generalizable to lower levels of health care, which have few or sometimes no physician at all to take care of persons with DM. Furthermore, the larger number of respondents from other geopolitical parts of the country may be required to support the establishment of a national guideline toward the provision of effective DR services.


   Conclusion Top


In summary, the level of knowledge of physicians to DR screening in our environment was suboptimal. Although most were aware of the effective method of delaying onset of DR and the frequency of eye examination, unavailability of ophthalmoscopes and dilating eye drops still form an important barrier to routine eye examination. Furthermore, only few of them were able to detect retinal changes on funduscopy with confidence, which prompts the need for improved training of physicians managing persons with DM on eye examination in a bid to strengthen DR screening and reduce the burden of visual impairment in our environment.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Rema M, Premkumar S, Anitha B, Deepa R, Pradeepa R, Mohan V, et al. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in urban India: The Chennai urban rural epidemiology study (CURES) eye study, I. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2328-33.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Osuntokun BO. Diabetic retinopathy in Nigerians. A study of 758 patients. Br J Ophthalmol 1969;53:652-63.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Burgess PI, Msukwa G, Beare NA. Diabetic retinopathy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Meeting the challenges of an emerging epidemic. BMC Med 2013;11:157.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mohamed Q, Gillies MC, Wong TY. Management of diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review. JAMA 2007;298:902-16.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kyari F, Tafida A, Sivasubramaniam S, Murthy GV, Peto T, Gilbert CE, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for diabetes and diabetic retinopathy: Results from the Nigeria national blindness and visual impairment survey. BMC Public Health 2014;14:1299.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Lawan A, Mohammed TB. Pattern of diabetic retinopathy in Kano, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2012;11:75-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Coyne KS, Margolis MK, Kennedy-Martin T, Baker TM, Klein R, Paul MD, et al. The impact of diabetic retinopathy: Perspectives from patient focus groups. Fam Pract 2004;21:447-53.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Hogan P, Dall T, Nikolov P, American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care 2003;26:917-32.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Agardh E, Agardh CD, Hansson-Lundblad C. The five-year incidence of blindness after introducing a screening programme for early detection of treatable diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 1993;10:555-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bachmann MO, Nelson SJ. Impact of diabetic retinopathy screening on a British distinct population: Case detection and blindness prevention in an evidence based model. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1998;52:45-52.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Global Guideline for Type II Diabetes. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2005.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Davies R, Sullivan P, Canning C. Simulation of diabetic eye disease to compare screening policies. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:945-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Chakrabarti R, Harper CA, Keeffe JE. Diabetic retinopathy management guidelines. Expert rev. Ophthalmol 2012;7:417-39.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Verma L, Prakash G, Tewari HK, Gupta SK, Murthy GV, Sharma N, et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy by non-ophthalmologists: An effective public health tool. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2003;81:373-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Khandekar R, Shah S, Al Lawatti J. Retinal examination of diabetic patients: Knowledge, attitudes and practices of physicians in Oman. East Mediterr Health J 2008;14:850-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Livingston PM, McCarty CA, Wood CA, Harper AC, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR, et al. Use of focus groups to identify health promotion strategies for the early detection of diabetic retinopathy. Aust N Z J Public Health 1998;22:220-2.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Indications of photocoagulation treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Int Ophth Clin 1987;103:1796-806.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Marozas LM, Fort PE. Diabetic retinopathy-update on prevention techniques, present therapies, and new leads. US Ophthalmic Rev 2014;7:54-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Shen LQ, Child A, Weber GM, Folkman J, Aiello LP. Rosiglitazone and delayed onset of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:793-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
ACCORD Study Group, ACCORD Eye Study Group, Chew EY, Ambrosius WT, Davis MD, Danis RP, et al. Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010;363:233-44.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Abu El-Asrar AM, Al-Mezaine HS. Advances in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2011;25:113-22.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1977.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ibrahim T. Sample size determination. In: Research Methodology and Dissertation Writing for Health and Allied Health Professional. Abuja: Cress Global Link Limited; 2010. p. 70-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Preti RC, Saraiva F, Junior JA, Takahashi WY, da Silva ME. How much information do medical practitioners and endocrinologists have about diabetic retinopathy? Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2007;62:273-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Wiggins MN, Landes RD, Bhaleeya SD, Uwaydat SH. Primary care physicians' knowledge of the ophthalmic effects of diabetes. Can J Ophthalmol 2013;48:265-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Raman R, Paul PG, Padmajakumari R, Sharma T. Knowledge and attitude of general practitioners towards diabetic retinopathy practice in South India. Community Eye Health 2006;19:13-4.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
McCarty CA, Taylor KI, Keeffe JE. Management of diabetic retinopathy by general practitioners in victoria. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2001;29:12-6.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Storey PP, Murchison AP, Pizzi LT, Hark LA, Dai Y, Leiby BE, et al. Impact of physician communication on diabetic eye examination adherence: Results from a retrospective cohort analysis. Retina 2016;36:20-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1913    
    Printed51    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded252    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal