OBJECTIVE: To investigate to what extent differences in diagnosed diabetes prevalence can be attributed to differences in the general practitioner's (GP) screening activity. DESIGN: An analysis of electronic patient files in combination with a survey among GPs. Setting. Ten primary healthcare centres with 44 GPs in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: General population (n = 58,919) and type 2 diabetic patients (n = 2582). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each GP filled in a questionnaire with questions concerning screening methods for diabetes. The presence of diabetes and date of diagnosis were determined. The potential confounding variables age, sex, and postal code (which we used to determine socioeconomic status) were retrieved from patient records. RESULTS: The yearly point prevalence of diabetes increased significantly from 2.92% in 2000-2001 to 4.25% in 2005-2006 (p = 0.002). The incidence increased from 3.29/1000 person-years to 5.13/1000 person-years (p = 0.019). High screening activity of the general practitioner resulted in statistically significantly higher odds (1.35; p = 0.015) of being diagnosed as a patient with diabetes. The effect was independent of the influence of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Screening activity of the GP has a statistically significant and relevant influence on the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes. General practitioners should evaluate their screening activity to optimize the identification of diabetic patients.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate to what extent differences in diagnosed diabetes prevalence can be attributed to differences in the general practitioner's (GP) screening activity. DESIGN: An analysis of electronic patient files in combination with a survey among GPs. Setting. Ten primary healthcare centres with 44 GPs in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: General population (n = 58,919) and type 2 diabeticpatients (n = 2582). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each GP filled in a questionnaire with questions concerning screening methods for diabetes. The presence of diabetes and date of diagnosis were determined. The potential confounding variables age, sex, and postal code (which we used to determine socioeconomic status) were retrieved from patient records. RESULTS: The yearly point prevalence of diabetes increased significantly from 2.92% in 2000-2001 to 4.25% in 2005-2006 (p = 0.002). The incidence increased from 3.29/1000 person-years to 5.13/1000 person-years (p = 0.019). High screening activity of the general practitioner resulted in statistically significantly higher odds (1.35; p = 0.015) of being diagnosed as a patient with diabetes. The effect was independent of the influence of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Screening activity of the GP has a statistically significant and relevant influence on the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes. General practitioners should evaluate their screening activity to optimize the identification of diabeticpatients.
Authors: Poul Erik Heldgaard; Jan Erik Henriksen; Johannes J Sidelmann; Niels de Fine Olivarius; Volkert D Siersma; Jørgen B Gram Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Tuula Saukkonen; Jari Jokelainen; Markku Timonen; Henna Cederberg; Mauri Laakso; Pirjo Härkönen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Ulla Rajala Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2012-02-12 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Suan Ee Ong; Joel Jun Kai Koh; Sue-Anne Ee Shiow Toh; Kee Seng Chia; Dina Balabanova; Martin McKee; Pablo Perel; Helena Legido-Quigley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240