OBJECTIVES: To provide insight into factors that contribute to the anxiety reported in a quantitative study of the psychological effect of screening for type 2 diabetes. To explore expectations of and reactions to the screening experience of patients with positive, negative, and intermediate results. DESIGN: Prospective qualitative interview study of patients attending a screening programme for type 2 diabetes. SETTING: Seven general practices in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial in the east of England. PARTICIPANTS: 23 participants (aged 50-69) attending different stages in the screening process. RESULTS: Participants' perceptions changed as they progressed through the screening programme; the stepwise process seemed to help them adjust psychologically. The first screening test was typically considered unimportant and was attended with no thought about its implications. By the final diagnostic test, type 2 diabetes was considered a strong possibility, albeit a "mild" form. After diagnosis, people with screen detected type 2 diabetes tended to downplay its importance and talked confidently about their plans to control it. Participants with intermediate results seemed uncertain about their diagnosis, and those who screened negative were largely unaware of their remaining high risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study helps in understanding the limited psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes quantified previously, in particular by the quantitative substudy of ADDITION (Cambridge). The findings have implications for implementing such a screening programme in terms of timing and content.
OBJECTIVES: To provide insight into factors that contribute to the anxiety reported in a quantitative study of the psychological effect of screening for type 2 diabetes. To explore expectations of and reactions to the screening experience of patients with positive, negative, and intermediate results. DESIGN: Prospective qualitative interview study of patients attending a screening programme for type 2 diabetes. SETTING: Seven general practices in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial in the east of England. PARTICIPANTS: 23 participants (aged 50-69) attending different stages in the screening process. RESULTS: Participants' perceptions changed as they progressed through the screening programme; the stepwise process seemed to help them adjust psychologically. The first screening test was typically considered unimportant and was attended with no thought about its implications. By the final diagnostic test, type 2 diabetes was considered a strong possibility, albeit a "mild" form. After diagnosis, people with screen detected type 2 diabetes tended to downplay its importance and talked confidently about their plans to control it. Participants with intermediate results seemed uncertain about their diagnosis, and those who screened negative were largely unaware of their remaining high risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study helps in understanding the limited psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes quantified previously, in particular by the quantitative substudy of ADDITION (Cambridge). The findings have implications for implementing such a screening programme in terms of timing and content.
Authors: William C Knowler; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; John M Lachin; Elizabeth A Walker; David M Nathan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: EunSeok Cha; Kevin H Kim; Guillermo Umpierrez; Colleen R Dawkins; Morenike K Bello; Hannah M Lerner; K M Venkat Narayan; Sandra B Dunbar Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: EunEeok Cha; Kevin H Kim; Hannah M Lerner; Colleen R Dawkins; Morenike K Bello; Guillermo Umpierrez; Sandra B Dunbar Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2014-05
Authors: Jonathan Graffy; Julie Grant; Kate Williams; Simon Cohn; Sara Macbay; Simon Griffin; Ann Louise Kinmonth Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: L A Sargeant; R K Simmons; R S Barling; R Butler; K M Williams; A T Prevost; A L Kinmonth; N J Wareham; S J Griffin Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Charlotte A M Paddison; Helen C Eborall; Stephen Sutton; David P French; Joana Vasconcelos; A Toby Prevost; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Simon J Griffin Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-11-30