We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Assessment of response rates and yields for Two opportunistic Tools for Early detection of Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia and Diabetes (ATTEND). A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2016 August
AIMS: To assess the opportunistic use in primary care of a computer risk score versus a self-assessment risk score for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled trial in 11 primary care practices in the UK. 577 patients aged 40-75years with no current diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were recruited to a computer based risk score (Leicester Practice Computer Risk Score (LPCRS)) or a patient self-assessment score (Leicester Self-Assessment Score (LSAS)).
RESULTS: The rate of self-referral blood tests was significantly higher for the LPCRS compared to the LSAS, 118.98 (95% CI: 102.85, 137.64) per 1000 high-risk patient years of follow-up compared to 92.14 (95% CI: 78.25, 108.49), p=0.022. Combined rate of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those at risk of developing the disease (i.e. impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)) was similar between the two arms, 15.12 (95% CI: 9.11, 25.08) per 1000 high-risk patient years for LPCRS compared to 14.72 (95% CI: 9.59, 22.57) for the LSAS, p=0.699. For the base case scenario the cost per new case of type 2 diabetes diagnosed was lower for the LPCRS compared to the LSAS, £168 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 76, 364), and £352 (95% CrI: 109, 1148), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a self-assessment risk score, a computer based risk score resulted in greater attendance to an initial blood test and is potentially more cost-effective.
METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled trial in 11 primary care practices in the UK. 577 patients aged 40-75years with no current diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were recruited to a computer based risk score (Leicester Practice Computer Risk Score (LPCRS)) or a patient self-assessment score (Leicester Self-Assessment Score (LSAS)).
RESULTS: The rate of self-referral blood tests was significantly higher for the LPCRS compared to the LSAS, 118.98 (95% CI: 102.85, 137.64) per 1000 high-risk patient years of follow-up compared to 92.14 (95% CI: 78.25, 108.49), p=0.022. Combined rate of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those at risk of developing the disease (i.e. impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)) was similar between the two arms, 15.12 (95% CI: 9.11, 25.08) per 1000 high-risk patient years for LPCRS compared to 14.72 (95% CI: 9.59, 22.57) for the LSAS, p=0.699. For the base case scenario the cost per new case of type 2 diabetes diagnosed was lower for the LPCRS compared to the LSAS, £168 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 76, 364), and £352 (95% CrI: 109, 1148), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a self-assessment risk score, a computer based risk score resulted in greater attendance to an initial blood test and is potentially more cost-effective.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app