Search

Background: Recent evidence recommended stepwise screening methods for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes to be recruited in the lifestyle intervention programs for the prevention of the disease. This study aims to assess the performance of different stepwise screening methods that combine non-invasive measurements with lab-based measurements for identifying those with 5-years incident type 2 diabetes., Methods: 3037 participants aged ≥30 years without diabetes at baseline in the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS) were followed. Thirty-two stepwise screening methods were developed by combining a non-invasive measurement (an anthropometric measurement (waist-to-height ratio, WtHR) or a score based on a non-invasive risk score [Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool, AUSDRISK]) with a lab-based measurement (different cut-offs of fasting plasma glucose [FPG] or predicted risk based on three lab-based prediction models [Saint Antonio, SA; Framingham Offspring Study, FOS; and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities, ARIC]). The validation, calibration, and usefulness of lab-based prediction models were assessed before developing the stepwise screening methods. Cut-offs were derived either based on previous studies or decision-curve analyses., Results: 203 participants developed diabetes in 5 years. Lab-based risk prediction models had good discrimination power (area under the curves [AUCs]: 0.80-0.83), achieved acceptable calibration and net benefits after recalibration for population's characteristics and were useful in a wide range of risk thresholds (5%-21%). Different stepwise methods had sensitivity ranged 20%-68%, specificity 70%-98%, and positive predictive value (PPV) 14%-46%; they identified 3%-33% of the screened population eligible for preventive interventions., Conclusion: Stepwise methods have acceptable performance in identifying those at high risk of incident type 2 diabetes., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

There are several treatment options for localized prostate cancer with very similar outcome but vary in terms of technique and side effect profiles and risks. Considering the potential difficulty in choosing the best treatment, a patient decision aid (PDA) is used to help patients in their decision-making process. However, the use and applicability of PDA in a country in Asia Pacific region like Malaysia is still unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a PDA modified to the local context in improving patients' knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making among men with localized prostate cancer. Sixty patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to control and intervention groups. A self-administered questionnaire, which evaluate the knowledge on prostate cancer (23 items), decisional conflict (10 items) and preparation for decision-making (10 items), was given to all participants at pre- and post-intervention. Data were analyzed using independent T test and paired T test. The intervention group showed significant improvement in knowledge (p = 0.02) and decisional conflict (p = 0.01) from baseline. However, when compared between the control and intervention groups, there were no significant differences at baseline and post-intervention on knowledge, decisional conflict and preparation for decision-making. A PDA on treatment options of localized prostate cancer modified to the local context in an Asia Pacific country improved patients' knowledge and decisional conflict but did not have significant impact on the preparation for decision-making. The study was also registered under the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12614000668606 registered on 25/06/2014., (© 2020. American Association for Cancer Education.)