Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Diabetologia 8/2006

01-08-2006 | Article

Understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care

Authors: I. Mühlhauser, J. Kasper, G. Meyer, Federation of European Nurses in Diabetes

Published in: Diabetologia | Issue 8/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis

Diabetes prevention studies have reported reductions of diabetes risk by up to 60%. Since the underlying metabolic changes are small, the clinical significance of this effect may be overestimated. The present survey explores the extent to which different formats of presenting study results may influence diabetes healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the importance of intervention effects on diabetes risk.

Subjects, materials and methods

Participants of three European diabetes conferences (160 nurse educators, 112 physicians, 27 other professionals) were presented with a questionnaire that included nine items, in which results from three diabetes prevention studies were presented in different ways.

Results

Participation rate was 96%. Effects were interpreted as important or very important by 92% (255/276) when results were presented as proportions of subjects with diabetes (14% intervention group, 29% control group), by 87% (248/285) when results were communicated as a risk reduction of 57%, by 39% (110/284) when the corresponding fasting plasma glucose values were presented (mean difference 0.3 mmol/l), and by 18% (52/283) when glycosylated haemoglobin values were used (6.0 vs 6.1%). Corresponding results of the three diabetes prevention studies were rated as being of identical importance by only 23, 13 and 16% of participants, respectively.

Conclusions and interpretation

Healthcare professionals rate the benefit of preventive interventions substantially higher when changes in diabetes risk are communicated rather than related glycaemic parameters. Transformation of continuous metabolic data into diagnostic categories may impair understanding of study effects.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Coulter A (1998) Evidence-based patient information. BMJ 317:225–226PubMed Coulter A (1998) Evidence-based patient information. BMJ 317:225–226PubMed
2.
go back to reference Entwistle VA, Sheldon TA, Sowden A, Watt IS (1998) Evidence-informed patient choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14:212–225PubMedCrossRef Entwistle VA, Sheldon TA, Sowden A, Watt IS (1998) Evidence-informed patient choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14:212–225PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A (2002) Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 324:827–830CrossRefPubMed Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A (2002) Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 324:827–830CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM (1992) Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 92:121–124CrossRefPubMed Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM (1992) Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 92:121–124CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K (1994) Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 309:761–764PubMed Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K (1994) Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 309:761–764PubMed
6.
go back to reference Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (2000) Communicating statistical information. Science 290:2261–2262CrossRefPubMed Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (2000) Communicating statistical information. Science 290:2261–2262CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ (1995) Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 311:1056–1060PubMed Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ (1995) Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 311:1056–1060PubMed
8.
go back to reference Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R (2001) Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulation on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 6:61–82CrossRefPubMed Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R (2001) Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulation on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 6:61–82CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Sackett DL (2002) The arrogance of preventive medicine. CMAJ 167:363–364PubMed Sackett DL (2002) The arrogance of preventive medicine. CMAJ 167:363–364PubMed
10.
go back to reference Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson J-G et al (2001) Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. NEJM 344:1343–1350CrossRefPubMed Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson J-G et al (2001) Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. NEJM 344:1343–1350CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Lindstrom J, Louheranta A, Mannelin M et al (2003) The Finnish diabetes prevention study (DPS). Diabetes Care 26:3230–3236PubMedCrossRef Lindstrom J, Louheranta A, Mannelin M et al (2003) The Finnish diabetes prevention study (DPS). Diabetes Care 26:3230–3236PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (2002) Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. NEJM 346:393–403CrossRef Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (2002) Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. NEJM 346:393–403CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chiasson J-L, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Karasik A, Laakso M for The STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group (2002) Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial. Lancet 359:2072–2077CrossRefPubMed Chiasson J-L, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Karasik A, Laakso M for The STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group (2002) Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial. Lancet 359:2072–2077CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Mühlhauser I (2002) Acarbose for type 2 diabetes prevention. Lancet 360:517CrossRef Mühlhauser I (2002) Acarbose for type 2 diabetes prevention. Lancet 360:517CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Margolis KL, Bonds DE, Rodabough RJ et al (2004) Effect of oestrogen plus progestin on the incidence of diabetes in postmenopausal women: results from the Women’s Health Initiative Hormone Trial. Diabetologia 7:1175–1187 Margolis KL, Bonds DE, Rodabough RJ et al (2004) Effect of oestrogen plus progestin on the incidence of diabetes in postmenopausal women: results from the Women’s Health Initiative Hormone Trial. Diabetologia 7:1175–1187
18.
go back to reference UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (1998) Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837–853CrossRef UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (1998) Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837–853CrossRef
19.
20.
go back to reference Mühlhauser I, Berger M (2000) Evidence-based patient information in diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 17:823–829CrossRefPubMed Mühlhauser I, Berger M (2000) Evidence-based patient information in diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 17:823–829CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Eriksson J, Lindström J, Valle T et al (1999) Prevention of Type II diabetes in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: the Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) in Finland. Study design and 1-year interim report on the feasibility of the lifestyle intervention programme. Diabetologia 42:793–801CrossRefPubMed Eriksson J, Lindström J, Valle T et al (1999) Prevention of Type II diabetes in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: the Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) in Finland. Study design and 1-year interim report on the feasibility of the lifestyle intervention programme. Diabetologia 42:793–801CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and surveys of authors. BMJ 330:753–756CrossRefPubMed Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and surveys of authors. BMJ 330:753–756CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Lipkus IM, Hollands JG (1999) The visual communication of risk. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 25:149–156PubMed Lipkus IM, Hollands JG (1999) The visual communication of risk. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 25:149–156PubMed
24.
go back to reference Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I (2005) Kriterien für evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen (Criteria for evidence-based patient information). Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 99:343–351PubMed Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I (2005) Kriterien für evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen (Criteria for evidence-based patient information). Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 99:343–351PubMed
Metadata
Title
Understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care
Authors
I. Mühlhauser
J. Kasper
G. Meyer
Federation of European Nurses in Diabetes
Publication date
01-08-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Diabetologia / Issue 8/2006
Print ISSN: 0012-186X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-006-0290-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2006

Diabetologia 8/2006 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine