Literature DB >> 16718464

Understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care.

I Mühlhauser1, J Kasper, G Meyer.   

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Diabetes prevention studies have reported reductions of diabetes risk by up to 60%. Since the underlying metabolic changes are small, the clinical significance of this effect may be overestimated. The present survey explores the extent to which different formats of presenting study results may influence diabetes healthcare professionals' perceptions of the importance of intervention effects on diabetes risk. SUBJECTS,
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants of three European diabetes conferences (160 nurse educators, 112 physicians, 27 other professionals) were presented with a questionnaire that included nine items, in which results from three diabetes prevention studies were presented in different ways.
RESULTS: Participation rate was 96%. Effects were interpreted as important or very important by 92% (255/276) when results were presented as proportions of subjects with diabetes (14% intervention group, 29% control group), by 87% (248/285) when results were communicated as a risk reduction of 57%, by 39% (110/284) when the corresponding fasting plasma glucose values were presented (mean difference 0.3 mmol/l), and by 18% (52/283) when glycosylated haemoglobin values were used (6.0 vs 6.1%). Corresponding results of the three diabetes prevention studies were rated as being of identical importance by only 23, 13 and 16% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND
INTERPRETATION: Healthcare professionals rate the benefit of preventive interventions substantially higher when changes in diabetes risk are communicated rather than related glycaemic parameters. Transformation of continuous metabolic data into diagnostic categories may impair understanding of study effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16718464     DOI: 10.1007/s00125-006-0290-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetologia        ISSN: 0012-186X            Impact factor:   10.122


  22 in total

Review 1.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

2.  Acarbose for type 2 diabetes prevention.

Authors:  Ingrid Mühlhauser
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-11-09       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.

Authors:  L Forrow; W C Taylor; R M Arnold
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-01-28

Review 5.  Evidence-based patient information in diabetes.

Authors:  I Mühlhauser; M Berger
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.359

6.  Effect of oestrogen plus progestin on the incidence of diabetes in postmenopausal women: results from the Women's Health Initiative Hormone Trial.

Authors:  K L Margolis; D E Bonds; R J Rodabough; L Tinker; L S Phillips; C Allen; T Bassford; G Burke; J Torrens; B V Howard
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2004-07-14       Impact factor: 10.122

7.  The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS): Lifestyle intervention and 3-year results on diet and physical activity.

Authors:  Jaana Lindström; Anne Louheranta; Marjo Mannelin; Merja Rastas; Virpi Salminen; Johan Eriksson; Matti Uusitupa; Jaakko Tuomilehto
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies.

Authors:  V A Entwistle; T A Sheldon; A Sowden; I S Watt
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.188

9.  Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-09-12       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Chiasson; Robert G Josse; Ramon Gomis; Markolf Hanefeld; Avraham Karasik; Markku Laakso
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  10 in total

1.  Turning signals into meaning--'shared decision making' meets communication theory.

Authors:  Jürgen Kasper; France Légaré; Fülöp Scheibler; Friedemann Geiger
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  From authority recommendations to fact-sheets--a future for guidelines.

Authors:  I Mühlhauser
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 10.122

3.  Training of patient and consumer representatives in the basic competencies of evidence-based medicine: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Bettina Berger; Anke Steckelberg; Gabriele Meyer; Jürgen Kasper; Ingrid Mühlhauser
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 4.  Evidence base in guideline generation in diabetes.

Authors:  I Mühlhauser; G Meyer
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 10.122

5.  An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Susanne Buhse; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Nadine Kuniss; Ulrich Alfons Müller; Thomas Lehmann; Katrin Liethmann; Matthias Lenz
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Susanne Buhse; Nadine Kuniss; Kathrin Liethmann; Ulrich Alfons Müller; Thomas Lehmann; Ingrid Mühlhauser
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  A survey on critical health competences among diabetes educators using the Critical Health Competence Test (CHC Test).

Authors:  Lars Hecht; Gabriele Meyer; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 8.  Heuristic decision making in medicine.

Authors:  Julian N Marewski; Gerd Gigerenzer
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.986

9.  Diabetes experts' reasoning about diabetes prevention studies: a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Ingrid Mühlhauser
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2008-10-14

Review 10.  Effectiveness of training in evidence-based medicine skills for healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lars Hecht; Susanne Buhse; Gabriele Meyer
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 2.463

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.