Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patients and computers as reminders to screen for diabetes in family practice

Randomized-controlled trial

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In New Zealand, more than 5% of people aged 50 years and older have undiagnosed diabetes; most of them attend family practitioners (FPs) at least once a year.

OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of patients or computers as reminders to screen for diabetes in patients attending FPs.

DESIGN: A randomized-controlled trial compared screening rates in 4 intervention arms: patient reminders, computer reminders, both reminders, and usual care. The trial lasted 2 months. The patient reminder was a diabetes risk self-assessment sheet filled in by patients and given to the FP during the consultation. The computer reminder was an icon that flashed only for patients considered eligible for screening.

PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seven FPs.

MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was whether each eligible patient, who attended during the trial, was or was not tested for blood glucose. Analysis was by intention to treat and allowed for clustering by FP.

RESULTS: Patient reminders (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.43), computer reminders (OR 2.55, 1.68, 3.88), and both reminders (OR 1.69, 1.11, 2.59) were all effective compared with usual care. Computer reminders were more effective than patient reminders (OR 1.49, 1.07, 2.07). Patients were more likely to be screened if they visited the FP repeatedly, if patients were non-European, if they were “regular” patients of the practice, and if their FP had a higher screening rate prior to the study.

CONCLUSIONS: Patient and computer reminders were effective methods to increase screening for diabetes. However, the effects were not additive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kenealy T, Braatvedt G, Scragg R. Screening for type 2 diabetes in nonpregnant adults in New Zealand: practical recommendations. N Z Med J. 2002;115:194–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ministry of Health. Taking the Pulse: The 1996/97 New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Johnston M, Langton K, Haynes B, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome; a critical appraisal of research. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:135–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shea A, DuMouchel W, Bahamonde L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomised controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996;3:399–409.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Larme A, Pugh J. Attitudes of primary care providers toward diabetes: barriers to guideline implementation. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1391–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nutting P, Rost K, Dickinson M, et al. Barriers to initiating depression treatment in primary care practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maly R, Abrahamse A, Hirsch S, et al. What influences physician practice behaviour? An interview study of physicians who received consultative geriatric assessment recommendations. Arch Fam Med. 1996;5:448–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cockburn J, Pit S. Prescribing behaviour in clinical practice: patients’ expectations and doctors’ perceptions of patients’ expectations—a questionnaire study. BMJ. 1997;315:520–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Turner B, Day S, Borenstein B. A controlled trial to improve delivery of preventive care: physician or patient reminders? J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:403–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware J, et al. Patients’ participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:448–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Yabroff K, Mandelblatt J. Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;8:749–57.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Tremmel J, Welch H. Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold? Lancet. 2001;358:1141–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffman J, Wilkes M. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs (editorial). BMJ. 1999;318:1301–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Streja D, Rabkin S. Factors associated with implementation of preventive care measures in patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:294–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Osborn E, Bird J, McPhee S, et al. Cancer screening by primary care physicians. Can we explain the differences? J Fam Pract. 1991;32:465–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cabana M, Rand C, Powe N, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA. 1999;282:1458–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kenealy T, Arroll B, Kenealy H, et al. General practice changes in south Auckland from 1990 to 1999: a threat to continuity of care? N Z Fam Phys. 2002;29:387–90.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Health Funding Authority. Diabetes 2000. Wellington: Health Funding Authority; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Herman W, Smith P, Thompson T, et al. A new and simple questionnaire to identify people at increased risk for undiagnosed diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1995;18:382–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. American Diabetes Association. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(suppl 1):S20–3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Kenealy PhD.

Additional information

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare for this article or this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kenealy, T., Arroll, B. & Petrie, K.J. Patients and computers as reminders to screen for diabetes in family practice. J GEN INTERN MED 20, 916–921 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0197.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0197.x

Key Words

Navigation