Cargando…

Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial

Objective To assess whether receiving a negative test result at primary care based stepwise diabetes screening results in false reassurance. Design Parallel group cohort study embedded in a randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 practices (10 screening, 5 control) in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paddison, Charlotte A M, Eborall, Helen C, Sutton, Stephen, French, David P, Vasconcelos, Joana, Prevost, A Toby, Kinmonth, Ann-Louise, Griffin, Simon J
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2785870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4535
_version_ 1782174849459814400
author Paddison, Charlotte A M
Eborall, Helen C
Sutton, Stephen
French, David P
Vasconcelos, Joana
Prevost, A Toby
Kinmonth, Ann-Louise
Griffin, Simon J
author_facet Paddison, Charlotte A M
Eborall, Helen C
Sutton, Stephen
French, David P
Vasconcelos, Joana
Prevost, A Toby
Kinmonth, Ann-Louise
Griffin, Simon J
author_sort Paddison, Charlotte A M
collection PubMed
description Objective To assess whether receiving a negative test result at primary care based stepwise diabetes screening results in false reassurance. Design Parallel group cohort study embedded in a randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 practices (10 screening, 5 control) in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial. Participants 5334 adults (aged 40-69) in the top quarter for risk of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (964 controls and 4370 screening attenders). Main outcome measures Perceived personal and comparative risk of diabetes, intentions for behavioural change, and self rated health measured after an initial random blood glucose test and at 3-6 and 12-15 months later (equivalent time points for controls). Results A linear mixed effects model with control for clustering by practice found no significant differences between controls and people who screened negative for diabetes in perceived personal risk, behavioural intentions, or self rated health after the first appointment or at 3-6 months or 12-15 months later. After the initial test, people who screened negative reported significantly (but slightly) lower perceived comparative risk (mean difference −0.16, 95% confidence interval −0.30 to −0.02; P=0.04) than the control group at the equivalent time point; no differences were evident at 3-6 and 12-15 months. Conclusions A negative test result at diabetes screening does not seem to promote false reassurance, whether this is expressed as lower perceived risk, lower intentions for health related behavioural change, or higher self rated health. Implementing a widespread programme of primary care based stepwise screening for type 2 diabetes is unlikely to cause an adverse shift in the population distribution of plasma glucose and cardiovascular risk resulting from an increase in unhealthy behaviours arising from false reassurance among people who screen negative. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN99175498.
format Text
id pubmed-2785870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27858702009-12-04 Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial Paddison, Charlotte A M Eborall, Helen C Sutton, Stephen French, David P Vasconcelos, Joana Prevost, A Toby Kinmonth, Ann-Louise Griffin, Simon J BMJ Research Objective To assess whether receiving a negative test result at primary care based stepwise diabetes screening results in false reassurance. Design Parallel group cohort study embedded in a randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 practices (10 screening, 5 control) in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial. Participants 5334 adults (aged 40-69) in the top quarter for risk of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (964 controls and 4370 screening attenders). Main outcome measures Perceived personal and comparative risk of diabetes, intentions for behavioural change, and self rated health measured after an initial random blood glucose test and at 3-6 and 12-15 months later (equivalent time points for controls). Results A linear mixed effects model with control for clustering by practice found no significant differences between controls and people who screened negative for diabetes in perceived personal risk, behavioural intentions, or self rated health after the first appointment or at 3-6 months or 12-15 months later. After the initial test, people who screened negative reported significantly (but slightly) lower perceived comparative risk (mean difference −0.16, 95% confidence interval −0.30 to −0.02; P=0.04) than the control group at the equivalent time point; no differences were evident at 3-6 and 12-15 months. Conclusions A negative test result at diabetes screening does not seem to promote false reassurance, whether this is expressed as lower perceived risk, lower intentions for health related behavioural change, or higher self rated health. Implementing a widespread programme of primary care based stepwise screening for type 2 diabetes is unlikely to cause an adverse shift in the population distribution of plasma glucose and cardiovascular risk resulting from an increase in unhealthy behaviours arising from false reassurance among people who screen negative. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN99175498. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2009-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC2785870/ /pubmed/19948642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4535 Text en This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Paddison, Charlotte A M
Eborall, Helen C
Sutton, Stephen
French, David P
Vasconcelos, Joana
Prevost, A Toby
Kinmonth, Ann-Louise
Griffin, Simon J
Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial
title Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial
title_full Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial
title_short Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial
title_sort are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? parallel group cohort study embedded in the addition (cambridge) randomised controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2785870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4535
work_keys_str_mv AT paddisoncharlotteam arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT eborallhelenc arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT suttonstephen arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT frenchdavidp arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT vasconcelosjoana arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT prevostatoby arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kinmonthannlouise arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT griffinsimonj arepeoplewithnegativediabetesscreeningtestsfalselyreassuredparallelgroupcohortstudyembeddedintheadditioncambridgerandomisedcontrolledtrial