umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How to diagnose and classify diabetes in primary health care: Lessons learned from the Diabetes Register in Northern Sweden (DiabNorth)
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health. (Arcum)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2475-7131
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5095-3454
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Cardiology.
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, ISSN 0281-3432, E-ISSN 1502-7724, Vol. 30, no 2, 81-87 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective. The objective was to create a diabetes register and to evaluate the validity of the clinical diabetes diagnosis and its classification. Design. The diabetes register was created by linkage of databases in primary and secondary care, the pharmaceutical database, and ongoing population-based health surveys in the county. Diagnosis and classification were validated by specialists in diabetology or general practitioners with special competence in diabetology. Analysis of autoantibodies associated with type 1 diabetes was used for classification. Setting. Primary and secondary health care in the county of V sterbotten, Sweden. Patients. Patients with diabetes (median age at diagnosis 56 years, inter quartile range 50-60 years) who had participated in the V sterbotten Intervention Programme (VIP) and accepted participation in a diabetes register. Results. Of all individuals with diabetes in VIP, 70% accepted to participate in the register. The register included 3256 (M/F 1894/1362) diabetes patients. The vast majority (95%) had data confirming the diabetes diagnoses according to WHO recommendations. Unspecified diabetes was the most common (54.6%) classification by the general practitioners. After assessment by specialists and analysis of autoantibodies the majority were classified as type 2 diabetes (76.8%). Type 1 diabetes was the second largest group (7.2%), including a sub-group of patients with latent autoimmune diabetes (4.8%). Conclusion. It was concluded that it is feasible to create a diabetes register based on information in medical records in general practice. However, special attention should be paid to the validity of the diabetes diagnosis and its classification.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Informa Healthcare, 2012. Vol. 30, no 2, 81-87 p.
Keyword [en]
Diabetes, classification, register, primary health care
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-56693DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2012.675565ISI: 000304602800005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-56693DiVA: diva2:537425
Available from: 2012-06-26 Created: 2012-06-25 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rolandsson, OlovNorberg, MargaretaNyström, LennarthSöderberg, StefanLindahl, BerntWeinehall, Lars
By organisation
Family MedicineEpidemiology and Global HealthCardiologyOccupational and Environmental Medicine
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 223 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf