AIMS: To determine diagnosed diabetic prevalence within our district (population 434398) in 1996 using data from two sources. METHODS: A general practice audit comprising data on patients with diabetes from 61 (82%) of 74 general practices was linked to a record linkage-derived patient index in which data from secondary care and other sources underwent a process of probability matching to identify records relating to the same patient and to flag those with diabetes. By linking this dataset to a mortality dataset, patients known to have died before 1996 could be excluded. Age and sex-stratified emigration rates were applied to those identified by the hospital dataset for each year from 1991 onwards. RESULTS: A total of 386988 residents (89.1%) were listed with a general practitioner participating in the audit, of whom 6050 patients were identified as having diabetes in 1996; a prevalence rate of 1.56%. From the hospital-based source, 7639 patients were identified who were alive in 1996, a period prevalence of 1.76%. By combining the two sources, and extrapolating the general practice audit to the population as a whole, a total of 10 530 patients were identified of whom 8735 were confirmed as still resident within South Glamorgan during 1996. This represented a period prevalence of between 2.01% to 2.42%. By applying age and sex-stratified migration rates to the diabetic population identified by hospital sources, a diagnosed diabetic population of 10,004 was identified, a prevalence of 2.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that to calculate the true prevalence of diagnosed diabetes from health sources, it is necessary to use both primary and secondary care sources.
AIMS: To determine diagnosed diabetic prevalence within our district (population 434398) in 1996 using data from two sources. METHODS: A general practice audit comprising data on patients with diabetes from 61 (82%) of 74 general practices was linked to a record linkage-derived patient index in which data from secondary care and other sources underwent a process of probability matching to identify records relating to the same patient and to flag those with diabetes. By linking this dataset to a mortality dataset, patients known to have died before 1996 could be excluded. Age and sex-stratified emigration rates were applied to those identified by the hospital dataset for each year from 1991 onwards. RESULTS: A total of 386988 residents (89.1%) were listed with a general practitioner participating in the audit, of whom 6050 patients were identified as having diabetes in 1996; a prevalence rate of 1.56%. From the hospital-based source, 7639 patients were identified who were alive in 1996, a period prevalence of 1.76%. By combining the two sources, and extrapolating the general practice audit to the population as a whole, a total of 10 530 patients were identified of whom 8735 were confirmed as still resident within South Glamorgan during 1996. This represented a period prevalence of between 2.01% to 2.42%. By applying age and sex-stratified migration rates to the diabetic population identified by hospital sources, a diagnosed diabetic population of 10,004 was identified, a prevalence of 2.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that to calculate the true prevalence of diagnosed diabetes from health sources, it is necessary to use both primary and secondary care sources.
Authors: Geoffrey V Gill; Aziz A Ismail; Nicholas J Beeching; Sarah B J Macfarlane; Mark A Bellis Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 18.000
Authors: Wing Cheuk Chan; Gary Jackson; Craig Shawe Wright; Brandon Orr-Walker; Paul L Drury; D Ross Boswell; Mildred Ai Wei Lee; Dean Papa; Rod Jackson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elizabeth R C Millett; Jennifer K Quint; Bianca L De Stavola; Liam Smeeth; Sara L Thomas Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 6.437