Search

Background: Documented inequalities in access to eye care for people with learning disabilities and/or autism are caused by poor uptake of primary eye care services, poor identification of eye problems, lack of signposting and reasonable adjustments of existing services, concerns about costs of care and the low priority historically given to these issues in eye care policy at a regional and national level. In 2019, the charity SeeAbility employed four eye care champions (ECCs) with lived experience of learning disability and/or autism to work in local communities in London and the Northwest of England. They provided peer‐to‐peer support on understanding the need for good eye health and engaged with policy makers, and learning disability, autism and eye care professionals at the local, regional and national levels to influence both the clinical practice of individual practitioners (within existing service/pathway models) and more widely to influence the commissioning of the Easy Eye Care pathway. This study explores the experiences of these ECCs. Methods: The study was conducted in April and May 2023. A case study approach was used to describe the experiences of the ECCs from March 2019 to March 2023. Data from structured interviews with the four ECCs and workload analysis were triangulated to provide a multifaceted understanding of this novel health promotion project. Findings: The ECCs found the role useful and reported that confidence in their practice and impact grew with time but they required ongoing support in the role. A good understanding of the promotional messages was reported. Developing a good network of contacts at an early stage, both people with learning disabilities and healthcare professionals, was key. Relationships with professionals were supportive and positive and a positive emotive response to their lived experience was reported in these interactions. Conclusions: From the perspective of the ECCs, the role is useful and beneficial. The work suggests some key recommendations for future development which include planning to build networks, support in presentation and communications skills and defining key messages and knowledge. Confidence of the ECCs builds with time in the role but also needs support the emotive impact of their lived experiences on audiences is highlighted. There is a need to evaluate how the programme is perceived by those who interact with it and how it changes behaviours which leads to better health outcomes. Accessible Summaries: People with learning disabilities are 10 times more likely than other people to have a problem with their eyes but less likely to get the eye care they need.This paper explains how people with a learning disability and/or autism are employed to tell other people with learning disabilities and/or autism, their supporters, health and care professionals and people who plan services about how important it is to get regular eye care. This job is an 'Eye Care Champion'.We share what the eye care champions did in their role, what worked well and what did not.We discuss how what we have learnt can help other people with learning disabilities and/or autism work as eye care champions and perhaps as champions for other areas of healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: To identify and synthesize studies reporting modifiable barriers/enablers associated with retinopathy screening attendance in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, and to identify those most likely to influence attendance. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the ‘grey literature’ for quantitative and qualitative studies to February 2017. Data (i.e. participant quotations, interpretive summaries, survey results) reporting barriers/enablers were extracted and deductively coded into domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework; with domains representing categories of theoretical barriers/enablers proposed to mediate behaviour change. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted within domains to describe the role each domain plays in facilitating or hindering screening attendance. Domains that were more frequently coded and for which more themes were generated were judged more likely to influence attendance. Results: Sixty‐nine primary studies were included. We identified six theoretical domains [‘environmental context and resources’ (75% of included studies), ‘social influences’ (51%), ‘knowledge’ (51%), ‘memory, attention, decision processes’ (50%), ‘beliefs about consequences’ (38%) and ‘emotions’ (33%)] as the key mediators of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance. Examples of barriers populating these domains included inaccurate diabetic registers and confusion between routine eye care and retinopathy screening. Recommendations by healthcare professionals and community‐level media coverage acted as enablers. Conclusions: Across a variety of contexts, we found common barriers to and enablers of retinopathy screening that could be targeted in interventions aiming to increase screening attendance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]