Global perspectives on the provision of diabetic retinopathy screening and treatment: Survey of health care professionals in 41 countries.

AIM: To assess the level of awareness and provision of screening and treatment for Diabetic Eye Disease (DED) comprising Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) and Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) among health care professionals. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of a qualitative study, based on semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews in 8 countries. The second phase used a quantitative approach utilising online surveys in 41 countries. The survey for health care professionals comprised of 43 questions covering provider information, practice characteristics, management of adults with diabetes and specific information from ophthalmologists on screening and treatments for DR. RESULTS: There were 2329 health care professionals who participated in the online survey. More than one third of diabetes specialists surveyed reported that they did not discuss eye care with their diabetes patients. Nearly two-thirds of all health care professionals surveyed reported that they had written information about diabetes for patients available in their practice. Only one in five (22%, n = 58) primary care providers reported they had material that contained sufficient information on eye complications, and 37% (n = 252) of ophthalmologists reported that they had sufficient information on eye complications. Sixty-five percent (n = 378) of ophthalmologists reported that most of their patients presented when visual problems had already occurred. Six percent (n = 36) stated that most of their patients presented when it was already too late for effective treatment. The most substantial barriers to eye health mentioned by health care professionals responding to the survey were: a patients' lack of knowledge and/or awareness about eye complications (43%), followed by lack of importance given to eye examinations by patients (33%), and the high cost of care (32%). Ophthalmologists also reported late screening (66%), and lack of patient education materials (55%) as obstacles for improving eye health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals need to be appropriately supported and trained so they can provide adults with diabetes with information about the risks of DR, support them in reducing their risk, and advocate for the provision of affordable DR screening and treatment as required

Cancer Causes Control

PURPOSE: Epidemiological studies have found an increased risk of multiple myeloma (MM) in farmers. Few studies have investigated the detailed circumstances of occupational pesticide exposure which could explain these increased risks (pesticide use on crops, seeds or on animals, contact with treated crops) and the role of other exposures. In the Agriculture and Cancer cohort (AGRICAN), we assessed the associations between MM and crop- or animal-related activities, with specific attention to pesticide exposure via use on animals and crops or contact with treated crops and to disinfectant exposure. METHODS: Analyses concerned 155,192 participants, including 269 incident MM identified by cancer registries from enrolment (2005-2007) to 2013. Cox models using attained age as time scale were run to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: MM risk was increased in farmers (i) who started using pesticides on crops in the 1960s, especially among those applying pesticides on corn (>/= 20 years: HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.08, 2.78, p for trend /= 10 years: HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22-6.27, p for trend = 0.01). We also observed significant elevated risks with disinfectant use in animal barns. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the role of pesticide use on crops and animals in the occurrence of MM risk in farmers

IDF Diabetes Atlas: The prevalence of pre-existing diabetes in pregnancy – A systematic reviewand meta-analysis of studies published during 2010–2020

ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of pre-existing diabetes in pregnancy from studies published during 2010–2020. MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and other sources for relevant data sources. The prevalence of overall pre-existing, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, by country, region and period of study was synthesised from included studies using the inverse-variance heterogeneity model and the Freeman-Tukey transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and publication bias using funnel plots. ResultsWe identified 2479 records, of which 42 data sources with a total of 78 943 376 women, met the eligibility criteria. The included studies were from 17 countries in North America, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, Australasia, Asia and Africa. The lowest prevalence was in Europe (0.5%, 95 %CI 0.4–0.7) and the highest in the Middle East and North Africa (2.4%, 95 %CI 1.5–3.1). The prevalence of pre-existing diabetes doubled from 0.5% (95 %CI 0.1–1.0) to 1.0% (95 %CI 0.6–1.5) during the period 1990–2020. The pooled prevalences of pre-existing type 1 and type 2 diabetes were 0.3% (95 %CI 0.2–0.4) and 0.2% (95 %CI 0.0–0.9) respectively. ConclusionWhile the prevalence of pre-existing diabetes in pregnancy is low, it has doubled from 1990 to 2020

The Incidence of Adult-Onset Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review From 32 Countries and Regions

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of adult-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) incidence is not well-characterized due to the historic focus on T1D as a childhood-onset disease. PURPOSE: We assess the incidence of adult-onset (≥20 years) T1D, by country, from available data. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and the gray literature, through 11 May 2021, was undertaken. STUDY SELECTION: We included all population-based studies reporting on adult-onset T1D incidence and published from 1990 onward in English. DATA EXTRACTION: With the search we identified 1,374 references of which 46 were included for data extraction. Estimates of annual T1D incidence were allocated into broad age categories (20-39, 40-59, ≥60, or ≥20 years) as appropriate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, we observed the following patterns: 1) there is a paucity of data, particularly in low- and middle-income countries; 2) the incidence of adult-onset T1D is lowest in Asian and highest in Nordic countries; 3) adult-onset T1D is higher in men versus women; 4) it is unclear whether adult-onset T1D incidence declines with increasing age; and 5) it is unclear whether incidence of adult-onset T1D has changed over time. LIMITATIONS: Results are generalizable to high-income countries, and misclassification of diabetes type cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: From available data, this systematic review suggests that the incidence of T1D in adulthood is substantial and highlights the pressing need to better distinguish T1D from T2D in adults so that we may better assess and respond to the true burden of T1D in adults.The article is available via Open Access. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text.Accepted version, submitted versio

Obtaining evidence base for the development of Feel4Diabetes intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes- A narrative literature review

Background: Feel4Diabetes was a school and community based intervention aiming to promote healthy lifestyle and tackle obesity for the prevention of type 2 diabetes among families in 6 European countries. We conducted this literature review in order to guide the development of evidence-based implementation of the Feel4Diabetes intervention. We focused on type 2 diabetes prevention strategies, including all the phases from risk identification to implementation and maintenance. Special focus was given to prevention among vulnerable groups and people under 45 years. Methods: Scientific and grey literature published between January 2000 and January 2015 was searched for relevant studies using electronic databases. To present the literature review findings in a systematic way, we used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. A complementary literature search from February 2015 to December 2018 was also conducted. Results: The initial review included 27 studies with a follow-up ≥12 months and 9 studies with a follow-up ≥6 months and with a participant mean age < 45 years. We found out that interventions should be targeted at people at risk to improve recruiting and intervention effectiveness. Screening questionnaires (primarily Finnish Diabetes Risk Score FINDRISC) and blood glucose measurement can both be used for screening; the method does not appear to affect intervention effectiveness. Screening and recruitment is time-consuming, especially when targeting lower socioeconomic status and age under 45 years. The intervention intensity is more important for effectiveness than the mode of delivery. Moderate changes in several lifestyle habits lead to good intervention results. A minimum of 3-year follow-up seemed to be required to show a reduction in diabetes risk in high-risk individuals. In participants < 45 years, the achieved results in outcomes were less pronounced. The complementary review included 12 studies, with similar results regarding intervention targets and delivery modes, as well as clinical significance. Conclusion: This narrative review highlighted several important aspects that subsequently guided the development of the Feel4Diabetes high-risk intervention. Research on diabetes prevention interventions targeted at younger adults or vulnerable population groups is still relatively scarce. Feel4Diabetes is a good example of a project aiming to fill this research gap. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02393872, registered 20th March 2015. © 2020 The Author(s)

Toward the development of a core set of outcome domains to assess shared decision-making interventions in rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi survey and consensus meeting

Objective. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials.Methods. Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set. Results.A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants). Conclusion. Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants

OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials. Methods. A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements. Results. OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains. Conclusion. A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building