Godelieve Johanna Maurice Vandersmissen1, Lode Godderis2. 1. Groep IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Heverlee, Belgium. lieve.vandersmissen@idewe.be. 2. Groep IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Heverlee, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to investigate the prevalence of undiagnosed dysglycaemia and the risk for type 2 diabetes using the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in the working population of Belgium. Moreover, it was to evaluate performance and applicability of FINDRISC as a screening tool during occupational health surveillance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out over the years 2010-2011 among 275 healthy employees who underwent a health check including fasting plasma glucose and the FINDRISC questionnaire. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of different FINDRISC cut-off values to detect dysglycaemia was revised in the literature and then calculated. RESULTS: The prevalence of unknown dysglycaemia was 1.8%. Twelve percent of the employees had a FINDRISC score of 12 to 14 corresponding to a moderate risk of 17% to develop diabetes within the next 10 years, and 5.5% had a score of 15 or more corresponding to a high - very high risk of 33% to 50%. All dysglycaemic individuals had a FINDRISC score of 12 or higher. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting dysglycaemia was respectively 100% and 84.1% for a FINDRISC cut-off value ≥ 12; and 80% and 95.9% for a cut-off value ≥ 15. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of workers had dysglycaemia or was at risk for developing type 2 diabetes. The questionnaire is a reliable, valuable and easy to use screening tool in occupational health surveillance. This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to investigate the prevalence of undiagnosed dysglycaemia and the risk for type 2 diabetes using the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in the working population of Belgium. Moreover, it was to evaluate performance and applicability of FINDRISC as a screening tool during occupational health surveillance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out over the years 2010-2011 among 275 healthy employees who underwent a health check including fasting plasma glucose and the FINDRISC questionnaire. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of different FINDRISC cut-off values to detect dysglycaemia was revised in the literature and then calculated. RESULTS: The prevalence of unknown dysglycaemia was 1.8%. Twelve percent of the employees had a FINDRISC score of 12 to 14 corresponding to a moderate risk of 17% to develop diabetes within the next 10 years, and 5.5% had a score of 15 or more corresponding to a high - very high risk of 33% to 50%. All dysglycaemic individuals had a FINDRISC score of 12 or higher. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting dysglycaemia was respectively 100% and 84.1% for a FINDRISC cut-off value ≥ 12; and 80% and 95.9% for a cut-off value ≥ 15. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of workers had dysglycaemia or was at risk for developing type 2 diabetes. The questionnaire is a reliable, valuable and easy to use screening tool in occupational health surveillance. This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.
Authors: Rafael Garcia-Carretero; Luis Vigil-Medina; Inmaculada Mora-Jimenez; Cristina Soguero-Ruiz; Oscar Barquero-Perez; Javier Ramos-Lopez Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 2.602
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: Shivshakti D Pawar; Jayashri D Naik; Priya Prabhu; Gajanan M Jatti; Sachin B Jadhav; B K Radhe Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2017 Jan-Mar
Authors: Andrzej Marcinkiewicz; Wojciech Hanke; Paweł Kałużny; Agnieszka Lipińska-Ojrzanowska; Marta Wiszniewska; Jolanta Walusiak-Skorupa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390