Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28757303›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2018

Risk accuracy of type 2 diabetes in middle aged adults: Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, psychological and behavioural factors.

Barbora Silarova, Fiona E Douglas, Juliet A Usher-Smith, Job G Godino, Simon J Griffin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Barbora SilarovaMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. Electronic address: Barbora.Silarova@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Fiona E DouglasSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Box 111 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SP, UK. Electronic address: fiona.douglas6@nhs.net.
Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, 2 Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK. Electronic address: jau20@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Job G GodinoMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; Center for Wireless and Population Health Systems, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0811, USA. Electronic address: jgodino@ucsd.edu.
Simon J GriffinMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, 2 Wort's Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK. Electronic address: ProfGP@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBMRC Epidemiology Unit · GBUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1259Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify the proportion of individuals with an accurate perception of their risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) prior to, immediately after and eight weeks after receiving a personalised risk estimate. Additionally, we aimed to explore what factors are associated with underestimation and overestimation immediately post-intervention.

methodsCohort study based on the data collected in the Diabetes Risk Communication Trial. We included 379 participants (mean age 48.9 (SD 7.4) years; 55.1% women) who received a genotypic or phenotypic risk estimate for T2D.

resultsWhile only 1.3% of participants perceived their risk accurately at baseline, this increased to 24.7% immediately after receiving a risk estimate and then dropped to 7.3% at eight weeks. Those who overestimated their risk at baseline continued to overestimate it, whereas those who underestimated their risk at baseline improved their risk accuracy. We did not identify any other characteristics associated with underestimation or overestimation immediately after receiving a risk estimate.

conclusionUnderstanding a received risk estimate is challenging for most participants with many continuing to have inaccurate risk perception after receiving the estimate. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals who overestimate or underestimate their T2D risk before receiving risk information might require different approaches for altering their risk perception.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorAdultAgedCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansLife StyleMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityPerceptionRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunicationDiabetes mellitus, type 2OptimismRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID28757303
PMCPMC6086332
OpenAlexW2739005418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.