Oral health professionals screening for undiagnosed type-2 diabetes and prediabetes: the iDENTify study

Oral Health Professionals’ and Patients’ Opinions of Type-2 Diabetes Screenings in an Oral Healthcare Setting

Objectives: As part of an evaluation of an oral healthcare practice-based model that identifies patients with prediabetes or type-2 diabetes (T2D), this study reports on the experiences and opinions of oral health professionals and patients on the screening program. Methodology: Urban and rural oral healthcare practices were invited to participate. Participating practices invited eligible patients to participate in the screening program. Patients were categorised as low, intermediate, or high-risk for prediabetes/T2D. Patients in the intermediate or high-risk category were referred to their general practitioner (GP) for further investigation. Post-screening surveys were used to assess acceptability, barriers and facilitators of the screening program among participating oral health professionals (OHP) and patients. Results: The post-screening survey was completed by 135 patient, and 38 OHPs (i.e., dentists, dental hygienists, oral health therapists). the majority of OHPs (94.6%) who delivered the protocol were satisfied with the approach. Most patients reported satisfaction with the approach (73.2%) and would recommend it to others. Several barriers for implementation were identified by OHPs and patients. Conclusion: OHPs feedback indicated that the screening model was generally acceptable. The feedback from patients following their participation in this study was overwhelmingly positive, indicating that the screening protocols were accepted by patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening to Identify Pre-Diabetes and Diabetes in the Oral Healthcare Setting

Background: This study assesses the long-term cost-effectiveness of this screening protocol from a healthcare system perspective. Methods: Australians presenting to private oral healthcare practices recruited to the iDENTify study were included as the study population. A Markov model preceded by a decision tree was developed to assess the intervention’s long-term cost-effectiveness when rolled out to all eligible Australians, and measured against ‘no-intervention’ current practice. The model consisted of four health states: normoglycaemia; pre-diabetes; type 2 diabetes and death. Intervention reach of various levels (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%) were assessed. The model adopted a 30-year lifetime horizon and a 2020 reference year. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per annum. Results: If the intervention reached a minimum of 10% of the target population, over the lifetime time horizon, each screened participant would incur a cost of $38,462 and a gain of 10.564 QALYs, compared to $38,469 and 10.561 QALYs for each participant under current practice. Screening was associated with lower costs and higher benefits (a saving of $8 per person and 0.003 QALYs gained), compared to current standard practice without such screening. Between 8 and 34 type 2 diabetes cases would be avoided per 10,000 patients screened if the intervention were taken up by 10% to 40% of private oral healthcare practices. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. Conclusions: Implementing type 2 diabetes screening in the private oral healthcare setting using a simple risk assessment tool was demonstrated to be cost-saving. The wider adoption of such screening is recommended.

Referral Compliance Following a Diabetes Screening in a Dental Setting: A Scoping Review

With type 2 diabetes prevalence increasing in Australia, and the condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality, screening for dysglycaemia in the dental setting has been proposed to identify asymptomatic individuals. Screening commences with a risk assessment, and individuals identified at elevated risk for having diabetes are then referred to their medical practitioner for confirmation of their glycemic status. Therefore, for screening to be effective, individuals need to adhere to their oral health professionals’ (OHP) advice and attend their medical follow-ups. This review aims to investigate the literature on referral compliance following a risk assessment in the dental setting and identify barriers and facilitators to screened individuals’ referral compliance. A scoping review of the literature was undertaken, selecting studies of diabetes screening in a dental setting that recorded compliance to referral to follow-up, and explored any barriers and facilitators to adherence. Fourteen studies were selected. The referral compliance varied from 25 % to 90%. Six studies reported barriers and facilitators to attending medical follow-ups. Barriers identified included accessibility, cost, knowledge of the condition, and OHP characteristics.