Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36777395›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2022

Disparities in adherence to diabetes screening guidelines among males and females in a universal care setting: A population-based study of 1,380,697 adults.

Padma Kaul, Luan Manh Chu, Douglas C Dover, Roseanne O Yeung, Dean T Eurich, Sonia Butalia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of implementing the National Health Service England Diabetes Prevention Programme in Canada: a modelling study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Access to Blood Glucose Testing in Peru: Who Is Getting Tested?Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Padma KaulCanadian VIGOUR Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Luan Manh ChuAlberta SPOR Support Unit, Alberta Health Services, Canada.
Douglas C DoverCanadian VIGOUR Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Roseanne O YeungDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Dean T EurichSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sonia ButaliaDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: National guidelines recommend that all adults over the age of 40 years undergo screening for diabetes at least once every 3-years. We examined the adherence to these guidelines among males and females after accounting for age, urban/rural residence, and material deprivation. We also examined the incidence of prediabetes and diabetes in adherent and non-adherent individuals. Methods: Our study is based on a retrospective population-level inception cohort of adults aged 40-79 years without pre-existing diabetes or cardiovascular disease on April 1, 2013. Adherence during a 3-year screening period (2013-2016) and prediabetes and diabetes during a 4-year follow-up period were examined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the adjusted association between sex and adherence. Findings: Among 1,380,697 individuals (49·2% male, 50·8% female) adherence rates were 69·9% in males and 79·8% in females. Sex-differences in adherence were largest in younger individuals (58·0% and 72·6% and in males and females aged 40-44 years, respectively) and consistent across rural/urban residence and material deprivation. Females were more adherent (adjusted odds ratio 1·92; 95% confidence interval 1·89 to 1·95) than males. Prediabetes and diabetes rates among individuals who adhered to screening guidelines were 15·7% and 2·6% among males and 13·4% and 1·5% among females. During the follow-up period, an additional 3·2% and 1·9% of adherent males and females had diabetes. Incidence rates of prediabetes and diabetes during the follow-up period among individuals who did not adhere to screening guidelines were 8·8% and 2·1% among males and 7·3% and 1·3% among females. Interpretation: Adherence to diabetes screening guidelines is sub-optimal, especially among young males. Despite lower rates of adherence to screening, males have higher rates of prediabetes and diabetes compared to females. There is a need for education campaigns to improve diabetes screening rates in young adults, especially males. Funding: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair (Recipient: Kaul).

Indexed as

AdherenceDiabetesPre-diabetesScreening

Identifiers

PMID36777395
PMCPMC9904035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.