Search

Background: Low socio-economic settings are characterized by high prevalence of diabetes and difficulty in accessing healthcare. In these contexts, proximity health services could improve healthcare access for diabetes prevention. Our primary objective was to evaluate the usefulness of home screening for promoting awareness of impaired glycemic status and utilization of primary care among adults aged 18-79 in a low socio-economic setting. Methods: This follow-up study was conducted in 2015-2016 in Reunion Island, a French overseas department in the Indian Ocean. Enrollment and screening occurred on the same day at the home of participants (N = 907). Impaired glycemic status was defined as [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) =5.7%] OR [fasting capillary blood glucose (FCBG) =1.10 g/L] OR [HbA1c = 5.5-5.6% and FCBG = 1.00-1.09 g/L]. Medical, socio-cultural, and socio-economic characteristics were collected via a face-to-face questionnaire. A one-month telephone follow-up survey was conducted to determine whether participants had consulted a general practitioner (GP) for confirmation of screening results. A multinomial polytomous logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with non-use of GP consultation for confirmation of screening results and nonresponse to the telephone follow-up survey. Results: Prevalence of glycemic abnormalities was 46.0% (95% CI = 42.7-49.2%). Among participants with impaired glycemic status (N = 417), 77.7% (95% CI = 73.7-81.7%) consulted a GP for confirmation of screening results, 12.5% (95% CI = 9.3-15.6%) did not, and 9.8% failed to respond to the follow-up survey. Factors independently associated with nonuse of GP consultation for confirmation of screening results were self-reported unwillingness to consult a GP (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 4.86, 95% CI = 1.70-13.84), usual GP consultation frequency of less than once a year (adjusted OR: 4.13, 95% CI = 1.56-10.97), and age 18-39 years (adjusted OR: 3.09, 95% CI = 1.46-6.57). Conclusion: Home screening for glycemic abnormalities is a useful proximity health service for diabetes prevention in low socio-economic settings. Further efforts, including health literacy interventions, are needed to increase utilization of primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A type 2 diabetes primary prevention programme that was shown to be feasible and effective in 2003 was transferred to another vulnerable district of Reunion Island in 2004, but its short-term effectiveness could not be reproduced. Based on this example, this article analyses whether the key functions/implementation/context model can be useful to : 1- more accurately describe an evaluated intervention ; and 2- identify the factors involved in the transferability of this intervention., Methods: The causality model of the initial programme is described. We then identified the key functions (or theoretical processes) of this initial programme, implementation of these functions, and the context in which the intervention took place. Transfer was analysed by focusing on the differences between the initial programme and the transferred programme in terms of key functions, implementation and context., Results: The causality model involves individual, meso-social, and environmental health determinants. Our analysis of programme transfer highlights differences in : key functions (two key functions dropped, one key function added, one key function modified), implementation (failure to implement, loss/improvement of quality), and context (population and socioeconomic level of the district concerned)., Conclusion: This work supports the hypothesis that the key functions/implementation/context model can be useful to improve the description of an intervention, and analyse the factors involved in its transferability.