Dataset Information

Informing patients of familial diabetes mellitus risk: How do they respond? A cross-sectional survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A strong family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) confers increased DM risk. This survey analysis determined whether patients who were informed by their doctors of familial DM risk acknowledged that risk and took steps to reduce it.

Methods

We conducted an analysis of the National Health Styles 2004 mail survey. All non-diabetic participants who responded to the question of whether their doctor had or had not informed them of their familial DM risk (n = 3,323) were compared for their risk-reducing behaviour and attitude to DM risk.

Results

Forty-one percent (n = 616) of the question responders that had DM family histories were informed by their doctors of their familial risk; the chance of being informed increased with the number of relatives that had the disease. Members of the informed group were more likely than those in the non-informed group to report lifestyle changes to prevent DM (odds ratio [OR] 4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5-5.2) and being tested for DM (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.4-3.6), although no significant improvement occurred in their U.S.-recommended exercise activity (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.1). Overall, informed responders recognised both their familial and personal DM risk; most discussed diabetes with their family (69%), though less so with friends (42%); however, 44% of them still did not consider themselves to be at risk.

Conclusion

Responders who were informed by their doctors of being at familial DM risk reported greater incidences of lifestyle changes, DM screening, and awareness of risk than non-informed responders. Doctors were more likely to inform patients with stronger DM family histories. Identifying this higher risk group, either in isolation or in combination with other recognised risk factors, offers doctors the opportunity to target limited health promotion resources efficiently for primary DM prevention.

SUBMITTER: Qureshi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2275238 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Informing patients of familial diabetes mellitus risk: How do they respond? A cross-sectional survey.

Qureshi Nadeem N Kai Joe J

BMC health services research 20080207

<h4>Background</h4>A strong family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) confers increased DM risk. This survey analysis determined whether patients who were informed by their doctors of familial DM risk acknowledged that risk and took steps to reduce it.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an analysis of the National Health Styles 2004 mail survey. All non-diabetic participants who responded to the question of whether their doctor had or had not informed them of their familial DM risk (n = 3,323) we ...[more]

PMID: 18257922

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-tests, tests on medical conditions that can be performed by consumers without consulting a doctor first, are frequently used. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the safety of self-testing, as it may delay diagnosis and appropriate treatment in the case of inappropriate use of the test, or false-negative results. It is unclear whether self-tests stimulate appropriate follow-up behaviour. Our aim was to examine the frequency of self-test use, consumers' response to self-test results in terms of their confidence in the result, reassurance by the test result, and follow-up behaviour.MethodsA two step cross-sectional survey was designed. A random sample of 6700 Internet users in an existing Internet panel received an online questionnaire on the use of self-tests. Self-tests were defined as tests on body materials, initiated by consumers with the aim to diagnose a disease or risk factor. A second questionnaire on consumers' response to self-test results was sent to the respondents that were identified as a self-tester in the first questionnaire (n = 703).Results18.1% (799/4416) of the respondents had ever performed a self-test, the most frequently used tests being those for diabetes (5.3%), kidney disease (4.9%), cholesterol (4.5%), urinary tract infection (1.9%) and HIV/AIDS and Chlamydia (both 1.6%). A total of 78.1% of the testers with a normal test result and 81.4% of those with an abnormal result reported confidence in this result. Almost all (95.6%) of the testers with a normal result felt reassured. After a normal result, 78.1% did not take any further action and 5.8% consulted a doctor. The corresponding figures after an abnormal test result were 9.3% and 72.2%, respectively.ConclusionsRespondents who had performed a self-test seemed to base their follow-up behaviour on the result of the test. They had confidence in the test result, and were often reassured by a normal result. After an abnormal result, most self-testers sought medical care. Because consumers seem to trust the self-test results, further research should focus on the development of consumer information addressing indications for performing a self-test, the validity of self-tests and appropriate interpretation of and management after a test.

Project description:BackgroundThe comorbid presence of tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus has become an increasingly important public health threat to the prevention and control of both diseases. Thus, household contact investigation may serve a dual purpose of screening for both tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus among household contacts. We therefore aimed to evaluate the coverage of screening for tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus among household contacts of tuberculosis index cases and to determine predictors of tuberculosis screening.MethodsA household-based survey was conducted in February 2019 in Muang district of Phatthalung Province, Thailand where 95 index tuberculosis patients were newly diagnosed with pulmonary or pleural tuberculosis between October 2017 and September 2018. Household contacts of the index patients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to ascertain their past-year history of tuberculosis screening and, if appropriate, diabetes mellitus screening. For children, the household head or an adult household member was interviewed as a proxy. Coverage of tuberculosis screening at the household level was regarded as households having all contacts screened for tuberculosis. Logistic regression and mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of tuberculosis screening at the household and individual levels, respectively, with the strengths of association presented as adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOf 61 responding households (64%), complete coverage of tuberculosis screening at the household level was 34.4% and among the 174 household contacts was 46.6%. About 20% of contacts did not receive any recommendation for tuberculosis screening. Households were more likely to have all members screened for tuberculosis if they were advised to be screened by a healthcare professional rather than someone else. At the individual level, contacts aged ?35?years (AOR: 30.6, 95% CI: 2.0-466.0), being an employee (AOR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0-0.8) and those who had lived more than 5?years in the same household (AOR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0-0.8) were independent predictors for tuberculosis screening. Coverage of diabetes mellitus screening was 80.6% with lack of awareness being the main reason for not being screened.ConclusionsCompared to diabetes screening, the coverage of tuberculosis screening was low. A better strategy to improve coverage of tuberculosis contact screening is needed.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To establish healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views about clinical roles, and the barriers and enablers to delivery of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). DESIGN:Cross-sectional, postal and online survey. SETTING:Trusts within the National Health Service, mental health and diabetes charities, and professional bodies. PARTICIPANTS:HCPs who care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or SMI in the UK. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The barriers, enablers and experiences of delivering T2DM care for people with SMI, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS:Respondents were 273 HCPs, primarily mental health nurses (33.7%) and psychiatrists (32.2%). Only 25% of respondents had received training in managing T2DM in people with SMI. Univariate analysis found that mental health professionals felt responsible for significantly fewer recommended diabetes care standards than physical health professionals (P<0.001). For those seeing diabetes care as part of their role, the significant barriers to its delivery in the multiple regression analyses were a lack of knowledge (P=0.003); a need for training in communication and negotiation skills (P=0.04); a lack of optimism about the health of their clients (P=0.04) and their ability to manage T2DM in people with SMI (P=0.003); the threat of being disciplined (P=0.02); fear of working with people with a mental health condition (P=0.01); a lack of service user engagement (P=0.006); and a need for incentives (P=0.04). The significant enablers were an understanding of the need to tailor treatments (P=0.04) and goals (P=0.02) for people with SMI. CONCLUSIONS:This survey indicates that despite current guidelines, diabetes care in mental health settings remains peripheral. Even when diabetes care is perceived as part of an HCP's role, various individual and organisational barriers to delivering recommended T2DM care standards to people with SMI are experienced.

Dataset Information

Informing patients of familial diabetes mellitus risk: How do they respond? A cross-sectional survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Informing patients of familial diabetes mellitus risk: How do they respond? A cross-sectional survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets