↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two methods for assessing diabetes risk in a pharmacy setting in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of two methods for assessing diabetes risk in a pharmacy setting in Australia
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monique F Kilkenny, Roslyn Johnson, Nadine E Andrew, Tara Purvis, Alison Hicks, Stephen Colagiuri, Dominique A Cadilhac

Abstract

Since 2007, the Australian Know your numbers (KYN) program has been used in community settings to raise awareness about blood pressure and stroke. In 2011, the program was modified to include assessment for type 2 diabetes risk. However, it is unclear which approach for assessing diabetes risk in pharmacies is best. We compared two methods: random (non-fasting) blood glucose testing (RBGT); and the Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool (AUSDRISK); according to 1) identification of 'high risk' participants including head-to-head sensitivity and specificity; 2) number of referrals to doctors; and 3) feasibility of implementation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 36 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 39 38%