To characterise engagement across the diabetic retinopathy (DR) care continuum in the USA using a cascade-of-care framework and identify gaps contributing to preventable vision loss.

Systematic review.

From September to November 2025, with an updated search in March to April 2026 using the same eligibility criteria, we systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles and opportunistic searches of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publications.

We included English-language US-based cross-sectional, cohort and case–control studies and systematic reviews containing US-based data published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2025 relevant to one of the defined DR cascade stages: (1) diagnosis of diabetes, (2) adherence to DR screening, (3) diagnosis of DR, (4) adherence to DR care and (5) DR-related blindness. We included systematic reviews only to inform DR-related blindness, where primary data were limited and excluded them from other stages to avoid double-counting. Exclusion criteria included studies not relevant to one of the defined DR cascade stages and editorial, perspective or commentary pieces.

Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk-of-bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. We synthesised data narratively and organised via the DR treatment cascade framework.

Of 14 893 studies screened, 46 met the inclusion criteria. Cascade analysis revealed substantial losses in patient engagement at three stages: (1) only 15.5%–78.7% (median 59.4%, IQR 33.9%–74.0%) of individuals with diabetes obtain biennial DR screening; (2) a substantial 54.9%–88.5% (median 70.1%, IQR 62.5%–79.3%) of individuals with DR are unaware of their diagnosis; (3) only 30.9%–62.7% (median 52.0%, IQR 40.9%–59.1%) of individuals diagnosed with DR are initially linked to care and 55.3%–77.8% (median 70.3%, IQR 59.2%–77.7%) have a lapse in DR follow-up.

This review identifies major gaps in the DR care continuum, particularly in diagnosis awareness, linkage to care and follow-up adherence. The cascade framework highlights key points of disengagement and provides a basis for prioritising future research.

Patient-centred care (PCC) is associated with better experiences for chronic care encounters and better outcomes. However, its assessment and resultant management outcomes have not been well documented in Malawi. As Malawi strives to institutionalise PCC in its quality-of-care initiatives, documenting its correlates and outcomes is a good starting point in the implementation and advocacy of PCC among chronic care patients, particularly those living with diabetes mellitus (DM).

We sought to assess the level of diabetic patients’ perception of PCC and its relationship to self-efficacy, adherence and glycaemic control among patients with DM.

This study was done in DM clinics of two district and two central hospitals in southern Malawi.

This was a cross-sectional analytical study. We studied 607 subsequent consenting adult patients with DM. We assessed the level of perception of using a locally generated and validated tool and its correlation with self-efficacy, adherence and long-term glycaemic control after a medical encounter. We used K-means clustering, linear and logistic regression, and path analysis in the analysis.

The study’s outcome measures included adherence, self-efficacy, long-term glycaemic control. Adherence included aspects related to medication, diet, lifestyle and appointment keeping and was assessed using the Hill-Bone tool. Self-efficacy was assessed using a Stanford self-efficacy tool while long-term glycaemic control was determined through haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) point-of-care testing.

Overall, the mean score for PCC was 62.86 (SD 14.78). The study highlighted two groups of patients with statistically distinct mean scores of 51.6 (7.8) vs 77.1 (7.2) out of a possible 92 (p

Although this study did not find a direct correlation between PCC and glycaemic control, it has demonstrated that PCC medical encounters could potentially improve glycaemic control by enhancing patients’ adherence to their diabetes management plans. Even though PCC is not an end in itself, medical encounters that prioritise good relational ambience, patient involvement and capacitation are promising interventions in DM care, especially for patients with or at risk of DM complications. The general lack of patient individualisation and involvement elements found in the medical encounters in our study could explain why PCC hardly has an impact on self-efficacy. The study highlights the importance of PCC in DM patient management and outlines important innovative adaptations towards transforming medical education to equip and appraise interpersonal skills that have an impact on patient-reported experiences and outcomes.