TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of two methods for assessing diabetes risk in a pharmacy setting in Australia
AU - Kilkenny, Monique Femia
AU - Johnson, Roslyn R
AU - Andrew, Nadine Elizabeth
AU - Purvis, Tara
AU - Hicks, Alison
AU - Colagiuri, Stephen
AU - Cadilhac, Dominique Ann-Michelle
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Background: Since 2007, the Australian Know your numbers (KYN) program has been used in community settings
to raise awareness about blood pressure and stroke. In 2011, the program was modified to include assessment for
type 2 diabetes risk. However, it is unclear which approach for assessing diabetes risk in pharmacies is best. We
compared two methods: random (non-fasting) blood glucose testing (RBGT); and the Australian type 2 diabetes
risk assessment tool (AUSDRISK); according to 1) identification of `high risk? participants including head-to-head
sensitivity and specificity; 2) number of referrals to doctors; and 3) feasibility of implementation.
Methods: 117 Queensland pharmacies voluntarily participated and were randomly allocated to RBGT and AUSDRISK
or AUSDRISK only. Although discouraged, pharmacies were able to change allocated group prior to commencement.
AUSDRISK is a validated self-administered questionnaire used to calculate a score that determines the 5-year risk of
developing type 2 diabetes. AUSDRISK (score 12+) or RBGT (=5.6 mmol/I) indicates a high potential risk of diabetes.
Median linear regression was used to compare the two measures. Staff from 68 pharmacies also participated in a
semi-structured interview during a site visit to provide feedback.
Results: Data were submitted for 5,483 KYN participants (60 female, 66 aged >55 years, 10 history of diabetes).
Approximately half of the participants without existing diabetes were identified as `high risk? based on either RBGT or
AUSDRISK score. Among participants who undertook both measures, 32 recorded a high RBGT and high AUSDRISK.
There was a significant association between RBGT and AUSDRISK scores. For every one point increase in AUSDRISK
score there was a half point increase in RBGT levels (coefficient 0.55, 95 CI: 0.28, 0.83). Pharmacy staff reported that
AUSDRISK was a simple, low cost and efficient method of assessing diabetes risk compared with RBGT, e.g. since
management of sharps is not an issue.
Conclusions: In a large, community-based sample of Australians about half of the participants without diabetes were
at `high risk `of developing diabetes based on either AUSDRISK or RBGT results. AUSDRISK was considered to be an
acceptable method for assessing the risk of diabetes using opportunistic health checks in community pharmacies.
AB - Background: Since 2007, the Australian Know your numbers (KYN) program has been used in community settings
to raise awareness about blood pressure and stroke. In 2011, the program was modified to include assessment for
type 2 diabetes risk. However, it is unclear which approach for assessing diabetes risk in pharmacies is best. We
compared two methods: random (non-fasting) blood glucose testing (RBGT); and the Australian type 2 diabetes
risk assessment tool (AUSDRISK); according to 1) identification of `high risk? participants including head-to-head
sensitivity and specificity; 2) number of referrals to doctors; and 3) feasibility of implementation.
Methods: 117 Queensland pharmacies voluntarily participated and were randomly allocated to RBGT and AUSDRISK
or AUSDRISK only. Although discouraged, pharmacies were able to change allocated group prior to commencement.
AUSDRISK is a validated self-administered questionnaire used to calculate a score that determines the 5-year risk of
developing type 2 diabetes. AUSDRISK (score 12+) or RBGT (=5.6 mmol/I) indicates a high potential risk of diabetes.
Median linear regression was used to compare the two measures. Staff from 68 pharmacies also participated in a
semi-structured interview during a site visit to provide feedback.
Results: Data were submitted for 5,483 KYN participants (60 female, 66 aged >55 years, 10 history of diabetes).
Approximately half of the participants without existing diabetes were identified as `high risk? based on either RBGT or
AUSDRISK score. Among participants who undertook both measures, 32 recorded a high RBGT and high AUSDRISK.
There was a significant association between RBGT and AUSDRISK scores. For every one point increase in AUSDRISK
score there was a half point increase in RBGT levels (coefficient 0.55, 95 CI: 0.28, 0.83). Pharmacy staff reported that
AUSDRISK was a simple, low cost and efficient method of assessing diabetes risk compared with RBGT, e.g. since
management of sharps is not an issue.
Conclusions: In a large, community-based sample of Australians about half of the participants without diabetes were
at `high risk `of developing diabetes based on either AUSDRISK or RBGT results. AUSDRISK was considered to be an
acceptable method for assessing the risk of diabetes using opportunistic health checks in community pharmacies.
UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289299/pdf/12889_2014_Article_7399.pdf
U2 - 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1227
DO - 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1227
M3 - Article
SN - 1471-2458
VL - 14
JO - BMC Public Health
JF - BMC Public Health
M1 - 1227
ER -