0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perceived diabetes risk and related determinants in individuals with high actual diabetes risk: results from a nationwide population-based survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The purpose of this study was first, to examine perceived diabetes risk compared with actual diabetes risk in the general population and second, to investigate which factors determine whether persons at increased actual risk also perceive themselves at elevated risk.

          Research design and methods

          The study comprised adults (aged 18–97 years) without known diabetes from a nationwide survey on diabetes-related knowledge and information needs in Germany in 2017. Actual diabetes risk was calculated by an established risk score estimating the 5-year probability of developing type 2 diabetes and was compared with perceived risk of getting diabetes over the next 5 years (response options: 'almost no risk', 'slight risk', 'moderate risk', 'high risk'; n = 2327). Among adults with an increased actual diabetes risk (n=639), determinants of perceived risk were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

          Results

          Across groups with a 'low' (<2%), 'still low' (2% to<5%), 'elevated' (5% to <10%), and 'high' (≥10%) actual diabetes risk, a proportion of 89.0%, 84.5%, 79.3%, and 78.9%, respectively, perceived their diabetes risk as almost absent or slight. Among those with an increased (elevated/high) actual risk, independent determinants of an increased (moderate/high) perceived risk included younger age (OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.96) per year), family history of diabetes (2.10 (1.06–4.16)), and being informed about an increased diabetes risk by a physician (3.27 (1.51–7.07)), but none of further diabetes risk factors, healthcare behaviors or beliefs about diabetes.

          Conclusions

          Across categories of actual diabetes risk, perceived diabetes risk was low, even if actual diabetes risk was high. For effective strategies of primary diabetes prevention, attention should be directed to risk communication at the population level as well as in primary care practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sixty years of fear appeal research: current state of the evidence.

          Fear arousal is widely used in persuasive campaigns and behavioral change interventions. Yet, experimental evidence argues against the use of threatening health information. The authors reviewed the current state of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of fear appeals. Following a brief overview of the use of fear arousal in health education practice and the structure of effective fear appeals according to two main theoretical frameworks-protection motivation theory and the extended parallel process model-the findings of six meta-analytic studies in the effectiveness of fear appeals are summarized. It is concluded that coping information aimed at increasing perceptions of response effectiveness and especially self-efficacy is more important in promoting protective action than presenting threatening health information aimed at increasing risk perceptions and fear arousal. Alternative behavior change methods than fear appeals should be considered.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS) - design, objectives and implementation of the first data collection wave

            Background The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) is part of the recently established national health monitoring conducted by the Robert Koch Institute. DEGS combines a nationally representative periodic health survey and a longitudinal study based on follow-up of survey participants. Funding is provided by the German Ministry of Health and supplemented for specific research topics from other sources. Methods/design The first DEGS wave of data collection (DEGS1) extended from November 2008 to December 2011. Overall, 8152 men and women participated. Of these, 3959 persons already participated in the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998 (GNHIES98) at which time they were 18–79 years of age. Another 4193 persons 18–79 years of age were recruited for DEGS1 in 2008–2011 based on two-stage stratified random sampling from local population registries. Health data and context variables were collected using standardized computer assisted personal interviews, self-administered questionnaires, and standardized measurements and tests. In order to keep survey results representative for the population aged 18–79 years, results will be weighted by survey-specific weighting factors considering sampling and drop-out probabilities as well as deviations between the design-weighted net sample and German population statistics 2010. Discussion DEGS aims to establish a nationally representative data base on health of adults in Germany. This health data platform will be used for continuous health reporting and health care research. The results will help to support health policy planning and evaluation. Repeated cross-sectional surveys will permit analyses of time trends in morbidity, functional capacity levels, disability, and health risks and resources. Follow-up of study participants will provide the opportunity to study trajectories of health and disability. A special focus lies on chronic diseases including asthma, allergies, cardiovascular conditions, diabetes mellitus, and musculoskeletal diseases. Other core topics include vaccine-preventable diseases and immunization status, nutritional deficiencies, health in older age, and the association between health-related behavior and mental health.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Short-term variability in measures of glycemia and implications for the classification of diabetes.

              Short-term variability in measures of glycemia has important implications for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and the conduct and interpretation of epidemiologic studies. Our objectives were to characterize the within-person variability in fasting glucose, 2-hour glucose, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and to assess the impact of using repeated measurements for classification of diabetes. We analyzed repeated measurements from 685 fasting participants without diagnosed diabetes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III Second Examination, a substudy conducted from 1988 to 1994 in which repeated examinations were conducted approximately 2 weeks after the original examination. Two-hour glucose levels had substantially more variability (within-person coefficient of variation [CV(w)], 16.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0 to 18.3) compared with either fasting glucose (CV(w), 5.7%; 95% CI, 5.3 to 6.1) or HbA1c (CV(w,) 3.6%; 95% CI, 3.2 to 4.0) levels. The proportion of persons with a fasting glucose level of 126 mg/dL or higher (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555) on the first test who also had a second glucose level of 126 mg/dL or higher was 70.4% (95% CI, 49.8% to 86.2%). Results were similar using the 2-hour glucose cutoff point of 140 mg/dL or higher. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes using a single fasting glucose level of 126 mg/dL or higher was 3.7%. If a second fasting glucose level of 126 mg/dL or higher was used to confirm the diagnosis (American Diabetes Association guidelines), the prevalence decreased to 2.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 4.0%), a 24.4% decrease. We found high variability in 2-hour glucose levels relative to fasting glucose levels and high variability in both of these relative to HbA1c levels. Our findings suggest that studies that strictly apply guidelines for the diagnosis of diabetes (2 glucose measurements) may arrive at substantially different prevalence estimates compared with studies that use only a single measurement.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care
                BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care
                bmjdrc
                bmjdrc
                BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2052-4897
                2019
                21 June 2019
                : 7
                : 1
                : e000680
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring , Robert Koch Institute , Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]departmentInstitute of Medical Sociology , Charité-Universitätsmedizin , Berlin, Germany
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Molecular Epidemiology , German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke , Nuthetal, Germany
                [4 ]departmentOffice for National Education and Communication on Diabetes mellitus , Federal Centre for Health Education , Cologne, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Christin Heidemann; HeidemannC@ 123456rki.de
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9413-2148
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6188-2017
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2304-9248
                Article
                bmjdrc-2019-000680
                10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000680
                6590966
                31297223
                352dfcb3-491f-47e3-9ebe-9c24523eb460
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 28 March 2019
                : 26 April 2019
                : 16 May 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003107, Bundesministerium für Gesundheit;
                Award ID: GE20160358
                Categories
                Epidemiology/Health Services Research
                1506
                1867
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                risk assessment,awareness,determinants,adult diabetes
                risk assessment, awareness, determinants, adult diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article