Screening for type 2 diabetes in a high-risk population: effects of a negative screening test after 4 years follow-up

Measurement of Perceived Risk of Developing Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review describes approaches to measuring perceived risk of developing type 2 diabetes among individuals without diagnoses and describes the use of theories, models, and frameworks in studies assessing perceived risk. While a systematic review has synthesized perceived risk of complications among individuals with diabetes, no reviews have systematically assessed how perceived risk is measured among those without a diagnosis.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHAL databases were searched for studies conducted through October 2022 with measures of perceived risk among adults ≥ 18 years without a diabetes diagnosis. Extracted data included study characteristics, measures, and health behavior theories, models, or frameworks used.

RESULTS

Eighty-six studies met inclusion criteria. Six examined perceived risk scales' psychometric properties. Eighty measured perceived risk using (1) a single item; (2) a composite score from multiple items or subconstructs; and (3) multiple subconstructs but no composite score. Studies used items measuring "comparative risk," "absolute or lifetime risk," and "perceived risk" without defining how each differed. Sixty-four studies used cross-sectional designs. Twenty-eight studies mentioned use of health behavior theories in study design or selection of measures.

DISCUSSION

There was heterogeneity in how studies operationalized perceived risk; only one third of studies referenced a theory, model, or framework as guiding design or scale and item selection. Use of perceived lifetime risk, absolute risk, or comparative risk limits comparisons across studies. Consideration of context, target population, and how data are utilized is important when selecting measures; we present a series of questions to ask when selecting measures for use in research and clinical settings. This review is the first to categorize how perceived risk is measured in the diabetes prevention domain; most literature focuses on perceived risk among those with diabetes diagnoses. Limitations include exclusion of non-English and gray literature and single reviewer screening and data extraction.

"Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants' experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder characterised by hyperglycaemia and associated with a heavy burden of microvascular and macrovascular complications, frequently remains undiagnosed. Screening of apparently healthy individuals may lead to early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and may prevent or delay the development of related complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception. The date of the last search was May 2019 for all databases. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults and children without known diabetes mellitus, conducted over at least three months, that assessed the effect of diabetes screening (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) compared to no diabetes screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential relevance and reviewed the full-texts of potentially relevant studies, extracted data, and carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 4651 titles and abstracts identified by the search and assessed 92 full-texts/records for inclusion. We included one cluster-randomised trial, the ADDITION-Cambridge study, which involved 20,184 participants from 33 general practices in Eastern England and assessed the effects of inviting versus not inviting high-risk individuals to screening for diabetes. The diabetes risk score was used to identify high-risk individuals; it comprised variables relating to age, sex, body mass index, and the use of prescribed steroid and anti-hypertensive medication. Twenty-seven practices were randomised to the screening group (11,737 participants actually attending screening) and 5 practices to the no-screening group (4137 participants). In both groups, 36% of participants were women; the average age of participants was 58.2 years in the screening group and 57.9 years in the no-screening group. Almost half of participants in both groups were on antihypertensive medication. The findings from the first phase of this study indicate that screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes did not show a clear difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.25, low-certainty evidence). Screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus showed an HR of 1.26, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.12 (low-certainty evidence) for diabetes-related mortality (based on whether diabetes was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate). Diabetes-related morbidity and health-related quality of life were only reported in a subsample and did not show a substantial difference between the screening intervention and control. The included study did not report on adverse events, incidence of type 2 diabetes, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on all-cause mortality and diabetes-related mortality. Evidence was available from one study only. We are therefore unable to draw any firm conclusions relating to the health outcomes of early type 2 diabetes mellitus screening. Furthermore, the included study did not assess all of the outcomes prespecified in the review (diabetes-related morbidity, incidence of type 2 diabetes, health-related quality of life, adverse events, socioeconomic effects).

Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result

Most individuals who undergo genomic screening will receive negative results or results not sufficient to warrant a clinical response. Even though a majority of individuals receive negative results, little is known about how negative results may impact individuals' perception of disease risk. Changes in risk perception (specifically reductions in perceived risk) may affect both probands and their family members if inaccurate information is communicated to family members. We surveyed patients who received negative results as part of their participation in a genomic screening study and assessed their perceptions of disease risk following receipt of results. Participants had either hyperlipidemia or colon polyps (or both) and received their negative genomic screening results by mail. Of 1712 total individuals recruited, 1442 completed the survey (84.2% completion rate). Approximately one quarter of individuals believed their risk for heart disease to be lower and approximately one third of individuals believed their risk for colon cancer to be lower after receiving and evaluating their negative genomic screening result. 78% of those who believed their risk for one or both diseases had declined had already shared or intended to share their result with family members. Our study suggests patients may interpret a negative genomic screening result as implying a reduction in their overall disease risk.

The risk, perceived and actual, of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus for mothers of preschool children in urban China

BACKGROUND

The perceived risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can motivate individuals to adopt preventive health behaviors. Compared with fathers, mothers of young children often experience unique risk factors for developing T2DM: pregnancy-related weight gain, lifestyle changes related to child care, and the increased incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus. Understanding how actual risk factors affect the perceived risk of developing T2DM can foster effective diabetes prevention interventions for this population. The aims of this study were to describe the risk, perceived and actual, of developing T2DM and to explore the influencing factors of perceived risk for Chinese mothers of preschool children in China.

METHODS

A multisite, cross-sectional survey was conducted and included 176 mothers (mean age of 31.19 years old) of preschool children (aged 3-7 years old) from four preschools in Changsha, the capital city of Hunan Province, China. The overall perceived risk of developing T2DM was measured by one item "Your own personal health risk is at almost no risk, slight risk, moderate risk or high risk from diabetes" from the Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes (RPS-DD). PRS-DD and the Chinese version of the Canadian Diabetes Risk Assessment Questionnaire (CHINARISK) were used to assess perceived risk related worry, personal control, optimistic bias, and diabetes risk knowledge and actual risk of T2DM. Mothers also reported their height, weight, and waist circumference followed by the NIH protocol. Pearson correlation and stepwise multivariate linear regression were used to explore how the actual risk factors affected the perceived risk of developing diabetes (RPS-DD)).

RESULTS

Nearly 90% of mothers perceived almost no/slight risk for developing diabetes. Nearly half of the mothers had parents or siblings with diabetes. Roughly 70% of the mothers did not eat five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and more than 50% did not exercise at least 30 minutes a day. In the five stepwise multivariate linear regression models, young mothers (95% CI .400-1.311) and those with a family history of diabetes (95% CI -0.74- .000) were founded a higher overall perceived risk. Mothers who reported more sedentary time (95% CI -0.029- -0.008) and less physical activity had less personal control (95% CI -0.354- -0.046). Mothers with more sedentary time had more worries about developing T2DM(95% CI 0.008-0.035) . Mothers who were older (95% CI -0.440-0.055) or had more physical activities (95% CI 0.003-0.048) had more optimistic bias of not developing T2DM. Mothers who had a higher education level (95% CI .354-1.422) and a family history of diabetes (95% CI .029-2.231) had more diabetes risk knowledge of developing T2DM.

CONCLUSION

This study found that Chinese mothers of preschool children in urban areas reported low perceived risk of developing T2DM, although they have actual risk factors. These women did not associate anthropometric, health history, or health behavior factors with the risk of developing T2DM. Anthropometrics and risk factors associated with behavioral risk factors may be the focus of diabetes prevention programs.

Do negative screening test results cause false reassurance? A systematic review

PURPOSE

It has been suggested that receiving a negative screening test result may cause false reassurance or have a 'certificate of health effect'. False reassurance in those receiving a negative screening test result may result in them wrongly believing themselves to be at lower risk of the disease, and consequently less likely to engage in health-related behaviours that would lower their risk.

METHODS

The present systematic review aimed to identify the evidence regarding false reassurance effects due to negative screening test results in adults (over 18 years) screened for the presence of a disease or its precursors, where disease or precursors are linked to lifestyle behaviours. MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched for trials that compared a group who had received negative screening results to an unscreened control group. The following outcomes were considered as markers of false reassurance: perceived risk of disease; anxiety and worry about disease; health-related behaviours or intention to change health-related behaviours (i.e., smoking, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption); self-rated health status.

RESULTS

Nine unique studies were identified, reporting 55 measures in relation to the outcomes considered. Outcomes were measured at various time points from immediately following screening to up to 11 years after screening. Despite considerable variation in outcome measures used and timing of measurements, effect sizes for comparisons between participants who received negative screening test results and control participants were typically small with few statistically significant differences. There was evidence of high risk of bias, and measures of behaviours employed were often not valid.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence base provided little evidence of false reassurance following a negative screening test results on any of four outcomes examined. False reassurance should not be considered a significant harm of screening, but further research is warranted. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? It has been argued that screening for disease may cause 'false reassurance' whereby those who receive a negative screening test result wrongly interpret their result as indicating they are less likely to develop the disease in future. There is some evidence for false reassurance, but the relevant studies consider a range of diseases and possible indicators of false reassurance (i.e., risk perceptions, lifestyle behaviours, emotional outcomes, and quality of life). For these reasons, it is currently unclear that the extent to receive negative screening test results is likely to impact on participants' lifestyle behaviours, or other possible indicators of false reassurance. What does this study add? Current available evidence shows that negative screening test results are unlikely to cause false reassurance and, in particular, are unlikely to have a negative impact on lifestyle behaviours. Given the limitations of the current evidence base in terms of number of studies and study quality, future research should continue to explore this issue, where this can be done at low cost.

Impact of a diabetes screening program on a rural Chinese population: a 3-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Screening for type 2 diabetes helps detect previously unknown diabetes and identify people with pre-diabetes, but the adverse impact of such screening on individuals labelled as pre-diabetes or classified as normal, is less known. In this study the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression and lifestyle changes in a rural Chinese population are assessed three years after a screening program.

METHODS

A total of 647 (39.1%) individuals with pre-diabetes and 1009 (60.9%) individuals with normoglycaemia from a population-based diabetes screening program in 2009 were re-examined in 2012-2013. Changes at the end of 3 years in HRQoL, depression, BMI, weight, frequency of physical activity and vegetable intake were assessed.

RESULTS

In men with normoglycaemia the mean (SD) 15D scores were 0.974 (0.04) at baseline and 0.973 (0.05) at follow-up; and 0.971 (0.05) and 0.966 (0.06) for men with pre-diabetes. In women the scores were 0.973 (0.05) and 0.963 (0.06) for normoglycaemia and 0.959 (0.06) and 0.954 (0.07) for pre-diabetes, respectively. Compared to baseline, the HRQoL was slightly lower at 3 years in all groups but the change was not considered to be clinically important, and was only statistically significant for women with normoglycaemia (p < 0.05). The depression score was slightly elevated in women, but not in men. No significant changes in BMI were noticed, but weight increased slightly in the normoglycemia group (p < 0.05). Screening had a significant positive impact on physical activity and vegetable intake.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based diabetes screening program generated long-term positive changes toward a healthy lifestyle as measured by physical activity and vegetable intake for all the participants without adverse effects on the HRQoL and depression.