Are people at high risk for diabetes visiting health facility for confirmation of diagnosis? A population-based study from rural India.

BACKGROUND: India is witnessing a rising burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus. India's National Programme for Prevention and Control of Diabetes, Cancer, Cardiovascular diseases and Stroke recommends population-based screening and referral to primary health centre for diagnosis confirmation and treatment initiation. However, little is known about uptake of confirmatory tests among screen positives. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the uptake of confirmatory tests and identify the reasons for not undergoing confirmation by those at high risk for developing diabetes. METHODS: We analysed data collected under project UDAY, a comprehensive diabetes and hypertension prevention and management programme, being implemented in rural Andhra Pradesh, India. Under UDAY, population-based screening for diabetes was carried out by project health workers using a diabetes risk score and capillary blood glucose test. Participants at high risk for diabetes were asked to undergo confirmatory tests. On follow-up visit, health workers assessed if the participant had undergone confirmation and ask for reasons if not so. RESULTS: Of the 35,475 eligible adults screened between April 2015 and August 2016, 10,960 (31%) were determined to be at high risk. Among those at high risk, 9670 (88%) were followed up, and of those, only 616 (6%) underwent confirmation. Of those who underwent confirmation, 'lack of symptoms of diabetes warranting visit to health facility' (52%) and 'being at high risk was not necessary enough to visit' (41%) were the most commonly reported reasons for non-confirmation. Inconvenient facility time (4.4%), no nearby facility (3.2%), un-affordability (2.2%) and long waiting time (1.6%) were the common health system-related factors that affected the uptake of the confirmatory test. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of diabetes was abysmally low in the study population. Low uptake of the confirmatory test might be due to low 'risk perception'. The uptake can be increased by improving the population risk perception through individual and/or community-focused risk communication interventions

Process evaluation protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a complex, nurse-led intervention to improve hypertension management in India.

INTRODUCTION: India has high prevalence of hypertension but low awareness, treatment and control rate. A cluster randomised trial entitled 'm-Power Heart Project' is being implemented to test the effectiveness of a nurse care coordinator (NCC) led complex intervention to address uncontrolled hypertension in the community health centres (CHCs). The trial's process evaluation will assess the fidelity and quality of implementation, clarify the causal mechanisms and identify the contextual factors associated with variation in the outcomes. The trial will use a theory-based mixed-methods process evaluation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation will be conducted in the CHCs of Visakhapatnam (southern India). The key stakeholders involved in the intervention development and implementation will be included as participants. In-depth interviews will be conducted with intervention developers, doctors, NCCs and health department officials and focus groups with patients and their caregivers. NCC training will be evaluated using Kirkpatrick's model for training evaluation. Key process evaluation indicators (number of patients recruited and retained; concordance between the treatment plans generated by the electronic decision support system and treatment prescribed by the doctor and so on) will be assessed. Fidelity will be assessed using Borrelli et al's framework. Qualitative data will be analysed using the template analysis technique. Quantitative data will be summarised as medians (IQR), means (SD) and proportions as appropriate. Mixed-methods analysis will be conducted to assess if the variation in the mean reduction of systolic blood pressure between the intervention CHCs is influenced by patient satisfaction, training outcome, attitude of doctors, patients and NCCs about the intervention, process indicators etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committees at Public Health Foundation of India and Deakin University. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03164317; Pre-results