Table 1
Comparison of clinical assessment and management of patients with diabetes at risk of DR between PEC and SOC.
| Rate for PEC (%) (n = 115) | Rate for SOC (%) (n = 116) | Diff in Rates (%) | Confidence Interval (%,%) | Equivalence Range (%,%) | Conclusion about PEC* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct Clinical Assessment | 97.39 | 94.83 | 2.56 | (–1.61, 6.74) | (–10, 10) | Equivalent |
| Satisfactory Management | 98.26 | 93.97 | 4.29 | (0.14, 8.45) | (–10, 10) | Equivalent |
[i] PEC, Primary Eye Care Clinic; SOC, Specialist Outpatient Clinic.
Correct clinical assessment and management is determined through a dichotomous tick box approach (correct clinical assessment: yes/no; satisfactory management: yes/no) according to senior vitreoretinal specialist.
* These conclusions are based on rigorous statistical significance principles, and derived from the confidence intervals and the equivalence range for generalized odds ratios.
Table 2
Comparison of patient satisfaction between PEC and SOC.
| Items | Sample Size | Generalized Odds Ratio (GOR)* | Confidence Interval for GOR | Equivalence Range for GOR | Conclusion about PEC** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Waiting time to see doctor | 179 | 1.36 | (0.91, 2.02) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 2 | Interaction with doctor | 179 | 1.54 | (0.94, 2.54) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 3 | Thorough examination | 124 | 0.72 | (0.33, 1.57) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-superior |
| 4 | Received care met expectations | 179 | 1.17 | (0.66, 2.08) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 5 | Medical staff appeared competent | 179 | 1.98 | (1.00, 3.93) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 6 | Medical care can be improved | 179 | 1.78 | (1.21, 2.61) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 7 | Friendly and courteous doctor | 179 | 1.60 | (0.89, 2.88) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 8 | Staff carefully checks all | 179 | 2.27 | (1.12, 4.59) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 9 | Services by all staff | 179 | 1.89 | (1.11, 3.23) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
| 10 | Overall care received | 179 | 0.82 | (0.53, 1.27) | (0.50, 2.00) | Equivalent |
| 11 | Overall clinic experience | 179 | 1.71 | (1.07, 2.73) | (0.50, 2.00) | Non-inferior |
[i] * Generalized Odds Ratio (GOR) > 1 indicates that PEC is empirically better.
** These conclusions are based on rigorous statistical significance principles, and derived from the confidence intervals and the equivalence range for generalized odds ratios.
Table 3
Comparison of the consultation and examinations costs at PEC and SOC.
| Cost item | Consultation ($) | Pre-consult Evaluation ($) | Refraction Test ($) | Fundus Photography ($) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEC | SOC | PEC | SOC | PEC | SOC | PEC | SOC | |
| Manpower | 19.32 | 74.08 | 8.66 | 8.66 | 8.63 | 16.29 | 5.75 | 10.63 |
| Drugs & Consumables | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 1.03 | 1.03 |
| Leasing | 1.37 | 3.12 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 1.06 | 2.28 | 0.45 |
| Overhead | 29.81 | 99.69 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17.94 | 1.37 | 17.94 | 2.41 |
| Depreciation | 1.13 | 0.00 | 1.13 | 0.19 | 0.33 | 1.70 | 5.54 | 1.25 |
| Total costs | 52.51 | 177.77 | 11.40 | 9.53 | 27.40 | 20.53 | 32.55 | 15.77 |