AIM: To examine attendance, number of people with T2DM and costs of three different stepwise screening strategies for T2DM in general practice (GP). METHODS: Diabetes risk questionnaires were mailed to individuals aged 40-69 years from 45 general practices in 2001-2002 and individuals at high risk for T2DM, were asked to contact their GP to arrange a screening test. In 2005-2006, 26 general practices were randomised into two different opportunistic screening programmes (OP-direct and OP-subsequent) and risk questionnaires were distributed to individuals aged 40-69 years during GP consultations. In the OP-direct approach, high-risk individuals were offered to start the screening during the actual consultation while high-risk individuals in the OP-subsequent approach, were invited to a screening test at a later date. We report attendance, number of people with T2DM and costs of each screening approach. RESULTS: The mail-distributed approach identified 0.8% of the target population with T2DM, the OP-direct approach and the OP-subsequent approach, 0.9% and 0.5% respectively. Cost per person with T2DM was in the mail-distributed approach: € 1058, OP-direct approach: € 707 and the OP-subsequent approach: € 727. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that opportunistic screening identifies the same level of unknown diabetes as a mail-distributed approach but with lower costs.
AIM: To examine attendance, number of people with T2DM and costs of three different stepwise screening strategies for T2DM in general practice (GP). METHODS:Diabetes risk questionnaires were mailed to individuals aged 40-69 years from 45 general practices in 2001-2002 and individuals at high risk for T2DM, were asked to contact their GP to arrange a screening test. In 2005-2006, 26 general practices were randomised into two different opportunistic screening programmes (OP-direct and OP-subsequent) and risk questionnaires were distributed to individuals aged 40-69 years during GP consultations. In the OP-direct approach, high-risk individuals were offered to start the screening during the actual consultation while high-risk individuals in the OP-subsequent approach, were invited to a screening test at a later date. We report attendance, number of people with T2DM and costs of each screening approach. RESULTS: The mail-distributed approach identified 0.8% of the target population with T2DM, the OP-direct approach and the OP-subsequent approach, 0.9% and 0.5% respectively. Cost per person with T2DM was in the mail-distributed approach: € 1058, OP-direct approach: € 707 and the OP-subsequent approach: € 727. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that opportunistic screening identifies the same level of unknown diabetes as a mail-distributed approach but with lower costs.
Authors: Nanna B Johansen; Anne-Louise S Hansen; Troels M Jensen; Annelotte Philipsen; Signe S Rasmussen; Marit E Jørgensen; Rebecca K Simmons; Torsten Lauritzen; Annelli Sandbæk; Daniel R Witte Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Daphne M Stol; Eelco A B Over; Ilse F Badenbroek; Monika Hollander; Mark M J Nielen; Roderik A Kraaijenhagen; François G Schellevis; Niek J de Wit; G Ardine de Wit Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 8.775