Nicola D Guess1, Natarin Caengprasath2, Anne Dornhorst3, Gary S Frost4. 1. Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, W12 0NN London, UK. Electronic address: n.guess10@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, W12 0NN London, UK. Electronic address: natarin.caengprasath12@imperial.ac.uk. 3. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College, , NHS Trust, Du Cane Road, W12 0NN London, UK. Electronic address: a.dornhorst@imperial.ac.uk. 4. Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, W12 0NN London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: NICE Guidelines for prevention of diabetes include identifying people at risk followed by cost-effective intervention if necessary. Based on assessment of risk via a questionnaire and/or blood test the intervention may comprise a brief discussion of risk factors and preventive advice or referral to intensive lifestyle intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study 59 subjects recruited from local GP practices were invited by letter to attend a screening for a diabetes prevention study. METHOD: Following a telephone screening during which subjects were asked whether they had been informed if they were at high-risk of type 2 diabetes, eligible subjects completed a Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes (RPS-DD), a validated diabetes risk score and underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at a medical screening. RESULTS: As measured by the Diabetes UK Risk Score, 44.1% were at high risk, 42.4% moderate risk and 13.6% at increased risk. 42% of patients had been informed they were at high-risk by a health professional. Those who had been informed of their risk had significantly higher perceived risk scores (p<0.001), higher knowledge scores (p<0.001) and decreased optimism scores (p=0.004), but were not more aware that diet (p=0.42) and weight management (p=0.57) can play a role in preventing diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: People at high-risk of diabetes are not being informed of their risk status as recommended by NICE guidelines. There is scope for education for health professionals and the public.
BACKGROUND: NICE Guidelines for prevention of diabetes include identifying people at risk followed by cost-effective intervention if necessary. Based on assessment of risk via a questionnaire and/or blood test the intervention may comprise a brief discussion of risk factors and preventive advice or referral to intensive lifestyle intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study 59 subjects recruited from local GP practices were invited by letter to attend a screening for a diabetes prevention study. METHOD: Following a telephone screening during which subjects were asked whether they had been informed if they were at high-risk of type 2 diabetes, eligible subjects completed a Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes (RPS-DD), a validated diabetes risk score and underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at a medical screening. RESULTS: As measured by the Diabetes UK Risk Score, 44.1% were at high risk, 42.4% moderate risk and 13.6% at increased risk. 42% of patients had been informed they were at high-risk by a health professional. Those who had been informed of their risk had significantly higher perceived risk scores (p<0.001), higher knowledge scores (p<0.001) and decreased optimism scores (p=0.004), but were not more aware that diet (p=0.42) and weight management (p=0.57) can play a role in preventing diabetes. CONCLUSIONS:People at high-risk of diabetes are not being informed of their risk status as recommended by NICE guidelines. There is scope for education for health professionals and the public.
Authors: Ingrid S Følling; Marit Solbjør; Kristian Midthjell; Bård Kulseng; Anne-S Helvik Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Bernd Kowall; Wolfgang Rathmann; Andreas Stang; Brenda Bongaerts; Oliver Kuss; Christian Herder; Michael Roden; Anne Quante; Rolf Holle; Cornelia Huth; Annette Peters; Christa Meisinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Concetta P Pelullo; Riccardo Rossiello; Roberto Nappi; Francesco Napolitano; Gabriella Di Giuseppe Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 3.411