Trial reportFamily practice2010
More than measurement: practice team experiences of screening for type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in Family practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring diverse applications of team-based care in preventive medicine: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Scalable office-based health care.Health services management research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe feasibility, cost-effectiveness and best means to implement population screening for type 2 diabetes remain to be established.
objectiveTo learn from the experiences of practice staff undertaking a diabetes screening programme in order to inform future screening initiatives.
methodsQualitative analysis of interviews with staff in six general practices in the 'ADDITION-Cambridge' trial; three randomly allocated to intensively manage screen-detected patients and three providing usual care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven nurses, four doctors, three health care assistants and four managers. Four researchers analysed the transcripts practice by practice, preparing vignettes and comparing interpretations. Participants commented on a summary report.
resultsEach practice team implemented the screening and intervention programme differently, depending on numbers at risk and decisions about staff contributions. Several emphasized the importance of administrative support. As they screened, they extended the reach of the programme, testing patients outside the target group if requested, checking other risk factors, providing health information and following up people with impaired glucose tolerance. Staff felt that patients accepted the screening and subsequent management as any other clinical activity.
conclusionsAlthough those developing screening programmes attempt to standardize them, primary care teams need to adapt the work to fit local circumstances. Staff need a sense of ownership, training, well-designed information technology systems and protected time. Furthermore, screening is more than measurement; at the individual level, it is a complete health care interaction, requiring individual explanations, advice on health-related behaviour and appropriate follow-up. The UK 'NHS Health Checks' programme should embrace these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.