4.5 Article

Prediabetes, diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, their risk factors and association with knowledge of diabetes in rural Bangladesh: The Bangladesh Population-based Diabetes and Eye Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 260-268

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.12294

关键词

and practice (KAP); attitudes; Bangladesh; diabetes mellitus; knowledge; risk factors; rural

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence and risk factors of prediabetes and diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM) in rural Bangladesh. MethodsUsing a population-based cluster random sampling strategy, 3104 adults aged 30 years were recruited. Fasting capillary blood glucose, blood pressure, height, weight, waist circumference, and knowledge, attitudes, and practice related to diabetes were recorded. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose (FG) 7.0mmol/L or a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes; impaired FG (IFG) was defined as FG6.1 and <7.0mmol/L. ResultsThe overall crude prevalence of DM was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.3%-8.1%; n=222), of which 55% (n=123) was previously undiagnosed (UDM). The prevalence of IFG was 5.3% (95% CI 4.5%-6.1%; n=163). The age-standardized prevalence of DM and IFG was 6.6% and 5.0%, respectively. The prevalence of UDM was higher in people of lower socioeconomic status (59% vs 31%; P<0.001). Of those with known DM, 56% had poor glycemic control (FG7.0mmol/L) and 37% were not on medication. Overall knowledge of DM was poor; only 16.3%, 17.8%, and 13.4% of those with UDM, IFG, and normal FG knew that diabetes causes eye disease, compared with 55.6% of those with known DM (P-trend<0.001). ConclusionsIn this rural Bangladeshi community, UDM was high. Lower socioeconomic status was associated with a higher risk of UDM. Overall knowledge of DM was poor. Public health programmes should target those of low socioeconomic status and aim to increase knowledge of DM in rural Bangladesh.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据