BACKGROUND: To address the increasing global prevalence of type 2 diabetes healthcare organisations have been contemplating different screening and intervention strategies. Patient acceptability is a key criterion of a screening programme. AIM: To explore the perspectives of those invited to attend the MY-WAIST screening study for type 2 diabetes, particularly explanations for attending or not, and views on the specific screening strategy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of 11 general practices in Leicestershire, UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 individuals (40-69 years) invited to attend the MY-WAIST screening study, comprising 13 who attended and 11 who did not attend the screening. Additional data included reply slips from 73 individuals who declined the offer of screening. Analysis was informed by the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Two categories of influence on the decision about attending screening emerged. 1) Beliefs about type 2 diabetes candidacy and type 2 diabetes was more common among those who had attended; lack of perceived severity of type 2 diabetes was more common among those who did not attend. 2) Practical aspects about the screening strategy: the lengthy, early morning screening appointments were a barrier to uptake; screening attendees found the procedure largely acceptable. Pre-screening waist self-measurement was more memorable than the remainder of the risk-score calculation; neither impacted on uptake. CONCLUSION: The barriers to screening uptake highlighted contribute to current debates about different screening and diagnostic tests for type 2 diabetes and future risk of type 2 diabetes. The findings are useful for those contemplating implementation of screening programmes for identifying type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes.
BACKGROUND: To address the increasing global prevalence of type 2 diabetes healthcare organisations have been contemplating different screening and intervention strategies. Patient acceptability is a key criterion of a screening programme. AIM: To explore the perspectives of those invited to attend the MY-WAIST screening study for type 2 diabetes, particularly explanations for attending or not, and views on the specific screening strategy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of 11 general practices in Leicestershire, UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 individuals (40-69 years) invited to attend the MY-WAIST screening study, comprising 13 who attended and 11 who did not attend the screening. Additional data included reply slips from 73 individuals who declined the offer of screening. Analysis was informed by the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Two categories of influence on the decision about attending screening emerged. 1) Beliefs about type 2 diabetes candidacy and type 2 diabetes was more common among those who had attended; lack of perceived severity of type 2 diabetes was more common among those who did not attend. 2) Practical aspects about the screening strategy: the lengthy, early morning screening appointments were a barrier to uptake; screening attendees found the procedure largely acceptable. Pre-screening waist self-measurement was more memorable than the remainder of the risk-score calculation; neither impacted on uptake. CONCLUSION: The barriers to screening uptake highlighted contribute to current debates about different screening and diagnostic tests for type 2 diabetes and future risk of type 2 diabetes. The findings are useful for those contemplating implementation of screening programmes for identifying type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes.
Authors: D R Webb; L J Gray; K Khunti; B Srinivasan; N Taub; S Campbell; J Barnett; A Farooqi; J B Echouffo-Tcheugui; S J Griffin; N J Wareham; M J Davies Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: S E Manley; K A Sikaris; Z X Lu; P G Nightingale; I M Stratton; R A Round; V Baskar; S C L Gough; J M Smith Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: V J Carey; E E Walters; G A Colditz; C G Solomon; W C Willett; B A Rosner; F E Speizer; J E Manson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1997-04-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mary Dixon-Woods; Debbie Cavers; Shona Agarwal; Ellen Annandale; Antony Arthur; Janet Harvey; Ron Hsu; Savita Katbamna; Richard Olsen; Lucy Smith; Richard Riley; Alex J Sutton Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Ebele M Umeukeje; Marcus G Wild; Saugar Maripuri; Teresa Davidson; Margaret Rutherford; Khaled Abdel-Kader; Julia Lewis; Consuelo H Wilkins; Kerri Cavanaugh Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: L J Gray; K Khunti; C Edwardson; S Goldby; J Henson; D H Morris; D Sheppard; D Webb; S Williams; T Yates; M J Davies Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2012-09-22 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Caroline Burgess; Alison J Wright; Alice S Forster; Hiten Dodhia; Jane Miller; Frances Fuller; Eric Cajeat; Martin C Gulliford Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 3.377