Background
Methods
Study design and patient involvement
Study subjects
Data collection
Data analysis
Results
Study subjects
Study subject demographics
Patient demographic and clinical characteristics
Patient Characteristics | mean ± SD (median, range) | n | % |
---|---|---|---|
Laterality | |||
Unilateral | 27 | 71.1 | |
Bilateral | 11 | 28.9 | |
Sex | |||
Male | 25 | 65.8 | |
Female | 13 | 34.2 | |
Status at follow-up | |||
Alive | 20 | 52.6 | |
Dead | 18 | 47.4 | |
Age at onset ( months) | |||
All cases (n = 38) | 13.92 ± 17.16 (8, 0–84) | ||
Bilateral | 6.73 ± 6.59 (5, 0–21) | ||
Unilateral | 16.85 ± 19.28 (11, 0–84) | ||
Age at Presentation at first care provider(months) | |||
All | 22.38 + 16.95 (24, 3–84) | ||
Age at diagnosis (months) | |||
All cases (n = 38) | 27.62 ± 17.22 (25, 3–86) | ||
Bilateral | 17.33 ± 7.51(15, 6–36) | ||
Unilateral | 30.93 ± 17.37(29.5, 3–86) | ||
Distance (km) home to… | |||
First Care Provider (n = 38) | 37.08 ± 85.83 (11, 1–450) | ||
< 100 km | 34 | 89.5 | |
100-200 km | 2 | 5.3 | |
> 200 km | 2 | 5.3 | |
Second Care provider (n = 37) | 257.53 ± 253.99(197.5, 10–866) | ||
RB treatment Center (n = 38) | 386.02 ± 85.83 (332, 20–1125) | ||
< 100 km | 9 | 23.7 | |
100- 300 km | 8 | 21.1 | |
301-500 km | 9 | 23.7 | |
> 500 km | 12 | 31.6 | |
Cost (Birr) of … | |||
travel from home to first care provider | 42.8 ± 99.64 (10, 0–560) | ||
travel from home to RB treatment center | 3446.4 ± 19,981.72(15, 0–120,000) | ||
care at first care provider | 233 ± 370.8 (100, 5–1550) | ||
care at RB treatment center | 7350.6 ± 39,906.4 (80, 0–240,000) | ||
Mean (median, range) | |||
Number of care providers visited before arriving at the RB treatment center | 1.5 (2, 0–2) |
Referral pathway
Patient Characteristics | n | % | Mean ± SD (median, range) overall lag time (months) | Mean ± SD (median, range) Lag Time 1 (months) | Mean ± SD (median, range) Lag Time 2 (months) | Mean ± SD (median, range) Lag Time 3 (weeks) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n = 38 | n = 38 | n = 38 | n = 38 | |||
Patients | 38 | 14.31 ± 9.3 (9.3, 0.25–62.25) | 7.97 ± 8.98 (4, 0–36) | 5.2 ± 9.3 (1, 0–38) | 3.18 ± 8.82 (1, 0–52) | |
Referral Pathway | ||||||
Home to Menelik II | 1 | 2.7 | 4.25 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Home—1 Facility—Menelik II | 14 | 36.8 | 12.46 ± 10.99 (12.63, 0.25–37) | 7.5 ± 6.94 (8, 0–22) | 3.57 ± 6.52 (1, 0–24) | 4.71 ± 13.62 (1, 0–52) |
Home—2 Facilities—Menelik II | 22 | 59.5 | 15.37 ± 16.04 (9.25, 0.25–62.25) | 8.5 ± 10.37 (3.5, 0–36) | 5.68 ± 10.54 (1, 0 = 38) | 1.73 ± 3.22 (1, 0–16) |
Timing & Location of Diagnosis | ||||||
1st Facility | 3 | 7.9 | 5.92 ± 6.41 (4,25, 0.5–13) | 1.33 ± 2.31 (0, 0–4) | 0 | 18.33 ± 29.16 (2, 1–52) |
Menelik II | 1 | 2.6 | 4.25 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Other | 2 | 5.3 | 6.75 ± 8.84 (6.75, 0.5–13) | 0 | 0 | 27 ± 35.36 (27, 2–52) |
2nd Facility | 29 | 76.3 | 14.12 ± 14.31 (14.1, 0.25–62.25) | 7.3 ± 7.01 (5, 0–24) | 6.28 ± 10.35 (2, 0–38) | 2.1 ± 3.99 (1, 0–16) |
Menelik II | 14 | 36.8 | 13.54 ± 11.75 (13.25,0.25–37) | 7.93 ± 6.99 (8, 0–22) | 5.07 ± 7.9 (1.5,0–24) | 2.14 ± 4.04 (1, 0–16) |
Other | 15 | 39.5 | 14.5 | 7.4 | 1.6 | |
3rd Facility (all Menelik II) | 6 | 15.8 | 17.04 ± 15.63 (15.3,0–37.25) | 14.5 ± 15.46 (13.5,0–36) | 2.3 ± 2.88 (1,0–6) | 0.8 ± 0.41 (1, 0–1) |
Location of Diagnosis | ||||||
Menelik II | 21 | 55.3 | 14.09 ± 12.55 (12.3, 0–37.25) | 9.62 ± 10.12 (6, 0–36) | 4.04 ± 6.72 (1,0–24) | 1.71 ± 3.32 (1, 0–16) |
Other | 17 | 44.7 | 13.74 ± 16.05 (9.25, 0.25–62.25) | 5.94 ± 7.11 (3, 0–24) | 6.53 ± 11.84 (1, 0–38) | 5 ± 12.64 (1, 0–52) |
First care provider – lag time 1
Characteristics | Number (n) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
First Care Provider n = 38 | ||
Health Facility | ||
Primary eye care center | 23 | 60.5 |
Secondary eye care center | 14 | 36.9 |
Menelik II | 1 | 2.6 |
Care Provider by profession | ||
Ophthalmologist | 11 | 28.9 |
General Practitioners | 6 | 15.8 |
Nurse | 14 | 36.8 |
HEW | 5 | 13.2 |
Traditional Healers | 2 | 5.3 |
Reasons to choose the FCP | ||
I had no choice | 10 | 26.3 |
I trust the person /center | 8 | 21.1 |
Referred by friend | 8 | 21.1 |
Referred by HEW | 5 | 13.2 |
Refereed by friend and I trust the center | 6 | 15.8 |
Refereed by friend and I had no choice | 1 | 2.6 |
Reasons for Delay > 3 months to seek care after noticing symptom n = 29 | ||
Didn’t think it was a problem and too expensive | 11 | 37.9 |
Didn’t think it was a problem, too far and too expensive | 9 | 31 |
Didn’t think it was a problem | 6 | 20.7 |
Didn’t think it was a problem and too far | 2 | 6.9 |
Too expensive | 1 | 3.5 |
Second Care Provider n = 37 | ||
Health Facility | ||
Primary eye care center | 1 | 2.7 |
Secondary eye care center | 17 | 45.9 |
Tertiary eye care center | 4 | 10.8 |
Menelik II | 15 | 40.5 |
Care Provider | ||
Pediatrics Ophthalmologist | 17 | 45.9 |
General Ophthalmologist | 16 | 43.2 |
General Practitioners | 4 | 10.8 |
Second care provider
Diagnosis – lag time 2
RB treatment center – lag time 3
Overall lag time
All Patients | Status at last follow-up | P-value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alive | Dead | ||||||
n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
All Patients | 38 | 100% | 20 | 53% | 18 | 47% | - |
Overall Lag time | |||||||
< 12 months | 20 | 53% | 14 | 37% | 6 | 16% | 0.0496* |
≥ 12 months | 18 | 47% | 6 | 16% | 12 | 32% | |
Treatment Adherence | |||||||
Adhered to Treatment | 36 | 95% | 20 | 53% | 16 | 42% | 0.2176 |
Treatment Refusal | 2 | 5% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 5% | |
Treatment Type (n = 36) | |||||||
Enucleation | 26 | 72% | 18 | 50% | 8 | 22% | 0.0113* |
Enucleation only | 8 | 22% | 8 | 22% | 0 | 0% | |
Enucleation + chemotherapy | 11 | 31% | 8 | 22% | 3 | 8% | |
Enucleation + chemotherapy + laser | 2 | 6% | 2 | 6% | 0 | 0% | |
Enucleation + chemotherapy + radiation | 5 | 14% | 0 | 0% | 5 | 14% | |
No enucleation | 10 | 28% | 2 | 6% | 8 | 22% | |
Chemotherapy alone | 7 | 19% | 0 | 0% | 7 | 19% | |
Chemotherapy + radiation | 1 | 3% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 3% | |
Chemotherpay + laser | 2 | 6% | 2 | 6% | 0 | 0% |