BACKGROUND: Offspring of people with type 2 diabetes underestimate their risk of developing the disease and know little about primary prevention. However, education about risk might cause psychological harm. AIM: To examine cognitive and psychological effects of education about personal risk. METHOD:Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from randomly selected general practices. One of their adult offspring was randomly selected and randomly allocated into one of three groups: 1. Group 1: given an initial interview, education, and a final interview; 2. Group 2: given an initial and final interview; and 3. Group 3: given one interview only. Psychological outcomes were assessed using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) and Positive Well-Being Scale (PWB) scores. RESULTS:Sixty-nine per cent (105/152) of eligible offspring participated. Ninety-one per cent (96/152) completed the study. Comparing first and final interviews, in Group 1, significantly fewer responders at final interview (after education) thought that their risk of developing diabetes was 'low' (65% versus 41%, P = 0.027), while in Group 2, there was no significant change in risk perception (P = 0.13). Significantly fewer people in the educated group (Group 1, final interview) than in the control group (Group 3) thought their risk of developing diabetes was 'low' (41% versus 77%, P = 0.002). Risk education did not affect total HAD scores or PWB scores significantly. CONCLUSION:Educating offspring of people with type 2 diabetes in this way about their risk of diabetes and possible preventive strategies increases their perception of personal risk but does not cause psychological harm.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Offspring of people with type 2 diabetes underestimate their risk of developing the disease and know little about primary prevention. However, education about risk might cause psychological harm. AIM: To examine cognitive and psychological effects of education about personal risk. METHOD:Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from randomly selected general practices. One of their adult offspring was randomly selected and randomly allocated into one of three groups: 1. Group 1: given an initial interview, education, and a final interview; 2. Group 2: given an initial and final interview; and 3. Group 3: given one interview only. Psychological outcomes were assessed using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) and Positive Well-Being Scale (PWB) scores. RESULTS: Sixty-nine per cent (105/152) of eligible offspring participated. Ninety-one per cent (96/152) completed the study. Comparing first and final interviews, in Group 1, significantly fewer responders at final interview (after education) thought that their risk of developing diabetes was 'low' (65% versus 41%, P = 0.027), while in Group 2, there was no significant change in risk perception (P = 0.13). Significantly fewer people in the educated group (Group 1, final interview) than in the control group (Group 3) thought their risk of developing diabetes was 'low' (41% versus 77%, P = 0.002). Risk education did not affect total HAD scores or PWB scores significantly. CONCLUSION: Educating offspring of people with type 2 diabetes in this way about their risk of diabetes and possible preventive strategies increases their perception of personal risk but does not cause psychological harm.
Authors: M E Mennie; A Gilfillan; M Compton; L Curtis; W A Liston; I Pullen; D A Whyte; D J Brock Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-07-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Liesbeth Claassen; Lidewij Henneman; A Cecile J W Janssens; Miranda Wijdenes-Pijl; Nadeem Qureshi; Fiona M Walter; Paula W Yoon; Danielle R M Timmermans Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Wieke H Heideman; Maartje de Wit; Barend J C Middelkoop; Vera Nierkens; Karien Stronks; Arnoud P Verhoeff; Frank J Snoek Journal: Trials Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Suzanne C M van Esch; Wieke H Heideman; Wilmy Cleijne; Martina C Cornel; Frank J Snoek Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Miranda Wijdenes; Lidewij Henneman; Nadeem Qureshi; Piet J Kostense; Martina C Cornel; Danielle R M Timmermans Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 3.295