Article Text
Abstract
Background Rates of care abandonment for retinoblastoma (RB) demonstrate significant geographical variation; however, other variables that place a patient at risk of abandoning care remain unclear. This study aims to identify the risk factors for care abandonment across a multinational set of patients.
Methods A prospective, observational study of 692 patients from 11 RB centres in 10 countries was conducted from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with higher rates of care abandonment.
Results Logistic regression showed a higher risk of abandoning care based on country (high-risk countries include Bangladesh (OR=18.1), Pakistan (OR=45.5) and Peru (OR=9.23), p<0.001), female sex (OR=2.39, p=0.013) and advanced clinical stage (OR=4.22, p<0.001). Enucleation as primary treatment was not associated with a higher risk of care abandonment (OR=0.59, p=0.206).
Conclusion Country, advanced disease and female sex were all associated with higher rates of abandonment. In this analysis, enucleation as the primary treatment was not associated with abandonment. Further research investigating cultural barriers can enable the building of targeted retention strategies unique to each country.
- Child health (paediatrics)
- Epidemiology
- Neoplasia
- Public health
- Retina
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Contributors Conception and design of the study: AS. Data acquisition: XJ, YZ, SS, RR, STS, NC, JLGL, RYDC, AMZ, TLU, VGP, SRR, AA, MAR, MSS, LAH, JWK, JLB, AP, NA, CB, SB, RB, MJB, AF, NG, NK-F, SM, MZ, SK, IDF and AS. Statistical analysis: XL and MO. Data interpretation: TN, AS and XL. Initial drafting of the manuscript: TN, AS and AC. Guarantors: TN and AS.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Highlights from this issue