Dataset Information

Screening for type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes: family physician and patient perspectives.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To explore primary care provider (PCP) and patient perspectives on postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including reasons for not completing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) specifically, preferred provider for organizing screening, and value of reminder letters for facilitating screening. DESIGN:A follow-up survey, administered by fax or telephone, to PCPs and patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial assessing effectiveness of postpartum postal reminders to enhance screening for T2DM in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SETTING:The Ottawa Hospital, a university-affiliated tertiary centre in Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 223 female patients with previously identified GDM and their respective PCPs were surveyed; 173 PCPs and 140 patients participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Whether or not the patient was screened for T2DM post partum, the test used for screening, the factors contributing to the patient not being screened, perspectives on the importance of screening post partum, and opinions about which care provider should be responsible for screening in the postpartum period. RESULTS:Response rates were 78% (173 of 223) for PCPs and 63% (140 of 223) for patients. Only 37% of the PCP responders had their patients complete OGTTs, while 85% of patient responders reported that they had completed OGTTs. The most common reason PCPs gave for not screening was no postpartum visit from the patient for any reason. Time pressures were the most common reason provided by patients for not being screened. More than 95% of patients and providers agreed that screening for T2DM was important. Patients and PCPs agreed that PCPs should be responsible for screening. Reminder letters were perceived as helpful by more than 85% of patients and PCPs. CONCLUSION:This follow-up survey demonstrates that PCPs and patients value the importance of screening for diabetes, identify the PCP as pivotal to screening, and appreciate a reminder strategy. There continue to be barriers that affect screening rates, despite the perceived importance of screening by PCPs and patients.

SUBMITTER: Keely E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2902390 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes: family physician and patient perspectives.

Keely Erin E Clark Heather H Karovitch Alan A Graham Ian I

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 20100601 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore primary care provider (PCP) and patient perspectives on postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including reasons for not completing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) specifically, preferred provider for organizing screening, and value of reminder letters for facilitating screening.<h4>Design</h4>A follow-up survey, administered by fax or telephone, to PCPs and patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial assessing effectiveness of postpartu ...[more]

PMID: 20547525

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWomen with a history of gestational diabetes (GDM) are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes and thus require regular follow-up screening for diabetes; however, many women do not receive this screening, and in particular low-income women face disparities in receipt of recommended follow-up care. While these women may have limited access to healthcare following pregnancy, they may more regularly access social service programs that serve themselves or their young children. Leveraging these social service touchpoints could broaden opportunities to improve follow-up care receipt among women with a history of GDM. To describe these potential opportunities, we used national representative data to characterize diabetes screening needs among women with a history of GDM who access the Special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Head Start programming for their young children.MethodsWe analyzed national representative data from the National Health Interview Survey from calendar years 2016 and 2017. Our analytic sample included women aged 18 to 45 years who were linked to at least one of their children in the dataset and who had a self-reported history of GDM but did not have prediabetes or diabetes. We examined the proportion of these women who accessed WIC or Head Start who did not report having testing for diabetes within the past 3 years.ResultsOf 432 (representing 2,002,675 weighted) women meeting inclusion criteria, 21.7% accessed WIC and 8.7% Head Start. Nearly 1 in 10 women with a history of GDM in either group did not report recent diabetes screening. In sensitivity analyses that excluded likely pregnancy-related testing, 35.0% of women accessing WIC and 21.2% of those accessing Head Start had not had recent screening.DiscussionThere is an unmet need for follow-up diabetes screening among women with a history of GDM who access WIC or Head Start services for their young children. Leveraging women's touchpoints with these programs could enhance opportunities to improve recommended diabetes screening among a high-risk population.

Project description:To identify family planning and pregnancy (FPP) issues for female patients of childbearing age living with a chronic inflammatory disease and to assess whether current clinical practice routinely provides adequate support to alleviate these concerns.Multinational survey and an analysis of online patient activity.Premenopausal women (aged 20-45 years; N=969) were surveyed in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Rheumatologists were surveyed in Germany (N=50), France (N=50), Italy (N=50) and the USA (N=100), and gastroenterologists were also surveyed in the USA (N=100).Two online surveys were undertaken to identify FPP issues for physicians and patients. The surveys examined the frequency of dialogue on these topics between physicians and patients, alongside assessment of patient satisfaction regarding these conversations. Online analysis identified key themes for patient discussion outside their doctors' office/clinic/surgery.32-56% of physicians spontaneously reported having talked about FPP with their female patients of childbearing age. When prompted, the majority of rheumatologists (74-92%) and gastroenterologists (74%) reported having discussed conception/pregnancy with female patients; however, less than half reported consulting their patient's treating general practitioner/gynaecologist about these topics. The majority of patients reported their FPP-related concerns are not adequately addressed/settled during their medical appointments. Furthermore, only 30-40% of patients considered advice/information to be consistent across multiple healthcare professionals. Key online FPP-related patient discussions included disease state, adverse effects, treatment, switch behaviour and wash-out requirements.Female patients who live with chronic inflammatory disease have important FPP concerns. The majority of patients, however, do not feel that their FPP concerns are adequately addressed in current clinical practice and report that they receive inconsistent advice from the various healthcare professionals who manage different aspects of their care. There is a clear need for provision of up-to-date and consistent information/support to female patients.

Project description:Despite the documented benefits of colorectal cancer screening, patient participation rates remain low. Physician recommendation has been identified as a significant predictor of screening completion.The aim of this study is to investigate how primary care physicians perceive colorectal cancer screening communication tasks, as well as to explore the form and content of actual screening discussions.The research design includes a mailed physician survey and a separate observational study in a sample of videotaped medical encounters. PARTICIPANTS AND DATA SOURCES: The participants were 270 primary care physicians who completed a mailed questionnaire (57.9% response rate) and 18 physician-patient encounters that included discussions of colorectal cancer screening.The questionnaire focused on perceived importance and accomplishment of communication tasks relevant to colorectal cancer screening. Two of the authors reviewed transcripts of videotaped physician encounters to determine whether the same communication tasks assessed in the survey were accomplished. Interrater reliability was high across all of the mutually exclusive coding categories (Kappa > .90).Physicians rated colonoscopy as the most important screening option to discuss; self-reports indicate that colonoscopy (84.8%) is more frequently mentioned than fecal occult blood test (FOBT; 49.4%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (34.1%), or computed tomography (CT) imaging (18.1%). Explaining benefits and risks, describing test procedure and frequency, eliciting patient preferences, and making a plan for screening were all viewed as very important. Self-reported accomplishment of these communication tasks was considerably higher than that observed in our separate videotape sample.Most physicians recognize and espouse the importance of recommending colorectal cancer screening to eligible patients. However, findings from both the physician survey and observational study suggest that physicians tend to overestimate the extent of discussions about screening. Interventions may be warranted to improve clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectivesThe concept of disease control incorporates independent disease characteristics that are longitudinally reflective of disease status and which can be used to make treatment decisions. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a chronic condition for which the determination of disease control by both the patient and the treating physician is important. Our objectives were to determine CRS disease characteristics that are associated with patient-reported and physician-rated CRS disease control.Study typeCross-sectional.MethodsA total of 209 participants were prospectively recruited. Participants were asked to rate their global level of CRS control as "not at all," "a little," "somewhat," "very," and "completely." All participants completed a 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and also reported the number of sinus infections, CRS-related antibiotic courses taken, CRS-related oral corticosteroid courses taken, and missed days of work or school due to CRS, all in the last 3 months. Clinical and demographic characteristics were also collected from each participant. A Lund-Kennedy endoscopy score was calculated for each participant from nasal endoscopy. Two rhinologists were then given each participant's SNOT-22 score (as well as SNOT-22 nasal, sleep, otologic/facial pain, and emotional subdomain scores), endoscopy score, and the number of sinus infections, CRS-related antibiotics, CRS-related oral corticosteroid courses and missed days of work or school due to CRS in the preceding 3 months as reported by the patient. The two rhinologists were blinded to all other participant characteristics and each rhinologist independently rated every participant's global control level as "not at all," "a little," "somewhat," "very," and "completely." Associations were sought between CRS disease characteristics (SNOT-22 score, endoscopy score, sinus infections, CRS-related antibiotic usage, CRS-related oral corticosteroid usage, and lost productivity due to CRS) and patient-reported CRS control as well as mean physician-rated CRS control.ResultsPatient-reported global CRS control was associated only with SNOT-22 (adjusted relative risk [RR]?=?0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99, P?<?.001) but no other CRS disease characteristic. Patient-reported CRS control was specifically associated only with nasal symptoms and not extra-nasal symptoms of CRS. Physician-rated CRS control was associated with SNOT-22 score (adjusted RR [for each 1-unit increase of SNOT-22]?=?0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99, P?<?.001), number of acute bacterial CRS exacerbations-reflected by number of antibiotic courses taken (or sinus infections)-in the last 3 months (adjusted RR?=?0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98, P?=?.014) and the number of CRS-related oral corticosteroid courses taken in the last 3 months (adjusted RR?=?0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.97, P?=?.012). Nasal, sleep, and otologic/facial pain symptoms were all associated with physician-rated CRS control. Having used at least one course of antibiotics or oral corticosteroids in the last 3 months was the optimal threshold for detecting poorly controlled CRS.ConclusionsPatients and physicians use different criteria to determine the level of CRS control. While both rely on the burden of CRS symptomatology, patients consider primarily nasal symptoms while physicians include nasal and extra-nasal symptoms of CRS in determining CRS control. Physicians also independently consider CRS-related antibiotic use, as a reflection of acute bacterial CRS exacerbations, and CRS-related oral corticosteroid use in the determination of global CRS control.Level of evidence2c.

Dataset Information

Screening for type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes: family physician and patient perspectives.

Publications

Screening for type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes: family physician and patient perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets