Prevalence of diabetes mellitus and the performance of a risk score among Hindustani Surinamese, African Surinamese and ethnic Dutch: a cross-sectional population-based study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is high, tailored risk scores for screening among South Asian and African origin populations are lacking. The aim of this study was, first, to compare the prevalence of (known and newly detected) DM among Hindustani Surinamese, African Surinamese and ethnic Dutch (Dutch). Second, to develop a new risk score for DM. Third, to evaluate the performance of the risk score and to compare it to criteria derived from current guidelines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional population based study among 336 Hindustani Surinamese, 593 African Surinamese and 486 Dutch, aged 35–60 years, in Amsterdam. Logistic regressing analyses were used to derive a risk score based on non-invasively determined characteristics. The diagnostic accuracy was assessed by the area under the Receiver-Operator Characteristic curve (AUC).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Hindustani Surinamese had the highest prevalence of DM, followed by African Surinamese and Dutch: 16.7, 8.1, 4.2% (age 35–44) and 35.0, 19.0, 8.2% (age 45–60), respectively. The risk score included ethnicity, body mass index, waist circumference, resting heart rate, first-degree relative with DM, hypertension and history of cardiovascular disease. Selection based on age alone showed the lowest AUC: between 0.57–0.62. The AUC of our score (0.74–0.80) was higher than that of criteria from guidelines based solely on age and BMI and as high as criteria that required invasive specimen collection.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In Hindustani Surinamese and African Surinamese populations, screening for DM should not be limited to those over 45 years, as is advocated in several guidelines. If selective screening is indicated, our ethnicity based risk score performs well as a screening test for DM among these groups, particularly compared to the criteria based on age and/or body mass index derived from current guidelines.</p

Adherence to guidelines and protocols in the prehospital and emergency care setting: a systematic review

Contains fulltext : 117489.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)A gap between guidelines or protocols and clinical practice often exists, which may result in patients not receiving appropriate care. Therefore, the objectives of this systematic review were (1) to give an overview of professionals' adherence to (inter)national guidelines and protocols in the emergency medical dispatch, prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings, and (2) to explore which factors influencing adherence were described in studies reporting on adherence. PubMed (including MEDLINE), CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for systematic reviews were systematically searched. Reference lists of included studies were also searched for eligible studies. Identified articles were screened on title, abstract and year of publication (>/=1990) and were included when reporting on adherence in the eligible settings. Following the initial selection, articles were screened full text and included if they concerned adherence to a (inter)national guideline or protocol, and if the time interval between data collection and publication date was <10 years. Finally, articles were assessed on reporting quality. Each step was undertaken by two independent researchers. Thirty-five articles met the criteria, none of these addressed the emergency medical dispatch setting or protocols. Median adherence ranged from 7.8-95% in the prehospital setting, and from 0-98% in the ED setting. In the prehospital setting, recommendations on monitoring came with higher median adherence percentages than treatment recommendations. For both settings, cardiology treatment recommendations came with relatively low median adherence percentages. Eight studies identified patient and organisational factors influencing adherence. The results showed that professionals' adherence to (inter)national prehospital and emergency department guidelines shows a wide variation, while adherence in the emergency medical dispatch setting is not reported. As insight in influencing factors for adherence in the emergency care settings is minimal, future research should identify such factors to allow the development of strategies to improve adherence and thus improve quality of care