Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20403926›Full record

Trial reportFamily practice2010

More than measurement: practice team experiences of screening for type 2 diabetes.

Jonathan Graffy, Julie Grant, Kate Williams, Simon Cohn, Sara Macbay, Simon Griffin, Ann Louise Kinmonth

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Scalable office-based health care.Health services management research · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jonathan GraffyInstitute of Public Health, General Practice & Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK. jonathan.graffy@phpc.cam.ac.uk
Julie Grant
Kate Williams
Simon Cohn
Sara Macbay
Simon Griffin
Ann Louise Kinmonth

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1259Medical Research Council G0200391Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Mass ScreeningProfessional PracticeAdultAgedAlgorithmsAttitude of Health PersonnelBlood GlucoseCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2General PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedNursesPhysiciansBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID20403926
PMCPMC2908159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.