Attitudes and opinions of Oral healthcare professionals on screening for Type-2 diabetes

Point-of-care diabetes testing in the dental setting: A national scope of practice survey

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge of state dental directors regarding their state's professional practice act, specifically scope of practice laws regarding point-of-care chairside screening for diabetes.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was used to examine the 50 state dental directors' knowledge of policy around point-of-care diabetes testing in their state. A five-item survey instrument was designed in a web-based platform and electronically distributed in 2022.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven states (74%) responded to the survey. Regarding whether it was within the scope of practice for dentists to provide chairside point-of-care HbA1c screening, 17 states (46.0%) responded "yes," 5 states (13.5%) responded "no," and 15 states (40.5%) responded "don't know." Of the 17 states who provide diabetes testing, four states (23.5%) reported that dentists were reimbursed, nine states (53.0%) reported they were not reimbursed, and four states (23.5%) reported they did not know regarding reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant state heterogeneity with regard to laws, regulations, and reimbursement for chairside diabetes testing in the United States. This is accompanied by vagueness and lack of specificity in the state education laws. For more widespread promotion and adoption of this evidence-based screening, the entire dental community including clinicians, educators, policymakers, payers, and professional organizations at all levels are encouraged to work together to advocate for clarification and specificity in the language of state education laws as well as reimbursement for this vital service.

Oral Health Professionals’ and Patients’ Opinions of Type-2 Diabetes Screenings in an Oral Healthcare Setting

Objectives: As part of an evaluation of an oral healthcare practice-based model that identifies patients with prediabetes or type-2 diabetes (T2D), this study reports on the experiences and opinions of oral health professionals and patients on the screening program. Methodology: Urban and rural oral healthcare practices were invited to participate. Participating practices invited eligible patients to participate in the screening program. Patients were categorised as low, intermediate, or high-risk for prediabetes/T2D. Patients in the intermediate or high-risk category were referred to their general practitioner (GP) for further investigation. Post-screening surveys were used to assess acceptability, barriers and facilitators of the screening program among participating oral health professionals (OHP) and patients. Results: The post-screening survey was completed by 135 patient, and 38 OHPs (i.e., dentists, dental hygienists, oral health therapists). the majority of OHPs (94.6%) who delivered the protocol were satisfied with the approach. Most patients reported satisfaction with the approach (73.2%) and would recommend it to others. Several barriers for implementation were identified by OHPs and patients. Conclusion: OHPs feedback indicated that the screening model was generally acceptable. The feedback from patients following their participation in this study was overwhelmingly positive, indicating that the screening protocols were accepted by patients.

Oral health professionals screening for undiagnosed type-2 diabetes and prediabetes: the iDENTify study

BACKGROUND

As part of an evaluation of an oral healthcare practice-based model that identifies patients with prediabetes or type-2 diabetes, this study reports on the proportion of patients identified with clinically confirmed type-2 diabetes (T2D)/prediabetes and barriers of implementation of the model.

METHODOLOGY

Urban and rural oral healthcare practices were invited to participate. Participating practices invited eligible patients to participate in the screening program using the Australian Type-2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool (AUSDRISK). Participants were categorised as low, intermediate, or high-risk for prediabetes/T2D. Patients in the intermediate or high-risk category were referred to their General Medical Practitioner (GP) for further investigation.

RESULTS

Fifty-one oral healthcare practices and 76 Oral Health Professionals (OHP) participated (60 Dentists, 8 Dental Hygienists, 8 Oral Health Therapists). 797 patients were screened; 102 were low-risk; 331 intermediate-risk; and 364 high-risk for T2D. Of the 695 participants in the intermediate or high-risk groups, 386 (55.5%) were referred to their GP for T2D assessment. Of them, 96 (25.0%) results were returned to OHPs. Of the returned results, six were (6.3%) diagnosed with pre-T2D.

CONCLUSION

Patients found to have undiagnosed T2D/prediabetes (6.3%) were within the expected range reported in the literature. Findings indicate that identifying individuals at an elevated risk of having or developing T2D is effective, feasible and could be incorporated into oral healthcare settings. However, this integration may require additional OHPs training and education to ensure that patients at elevated risk of T2D are referred for further assessment.

Diabetes and Oral Health (DiabOH): The Perspectives of Primary Healthcare Providers in the Management of Diabetes and Periodontitis in China and Comparison with Those in Australia

Diabetes and periodontal disease are highly prevalent conditions around the world with a bilateral causative relationship. Research suggests that interprofessional collaboration can improve care delivery and treatment outcomes. However, there continues to be little interprofessional management of these diseases. DiabOH research aims to develop an interprofessional diabetes and oral health care model for primary health care that would be globally applicable. Community medical practitioners (CMPs), community health nurses (CNs), and dentists in Shanghai were recruited to participate in online quantitative surveys. Response data of 76 CMPs, CNs, and dentists was analysed for descriptive statistics and compared with Australian data. Health professionals in China reported that, while screening for diabetes and periodontitis, increasing patient referral and improving interprofessional collaboration would be feasible, these were not within their scope of practice. Oral health screening was rarely conducted by CMPs or CNs, while dentists were not comfortable discussing diabetes with patients. Most participants believed that better collaboration would benefit patients. Chinese professionals concurred that interprofessional collaboration is vital for the improved management of diabetes and periodontitis. These views were similar in Melbourne, except that Shanghai health professionals held increased confidence in managing patients with diabetes and were more welcoming to increased oral health training.