4.0 Article

Diabetes screening at the periodontal visit: patient and provider experiences with two screening approaches

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTAL HYGIENE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 250-258

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2011.00542.x

关键词

collaborative approach; periodontitis; research; systemic disease

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources, U.S. National Institutes of Health [1UL1RR029893]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To cite this article: ? Int J Dent Hygiene10, 2012; 250258 ?DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2011.00542.x Rosedale MT, Strauss SM. Diabetes screening at the periodontal visit: patient and provider experiences with two screening approaches. Abstract: Objectives: This study examined patient and dental provider experiences during the periodontal visit of diabetes screening approaches involving the collection of gingival crevicular blood (GCB) and finger stick blood (FSB) for haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. Methods: At a large, urban, US periodontics and implant clinic, FSB samples from 120 patients and GCB samples from 102 of these patients were collected on special blood collection cards and sent to a laboratory for HbA1c testing, with test results sent to the patients from the laboratory. Quantitative and qualitative data from patients and qualitative data from providers were collected and analysed. Results: Quantitative and qualitative data support the feasibility and acceptability of the approaches described. Themes that arose from the interviews with providers and patients include a good chance to check, patient choice, FSB versus GCB testing and a new way of interacting and viewing the dental visit. Conclusions: Periodontal patients and dental providers believe that the dental visit is an opportune site for diabetes screening and generally prefer GCB to FSB collection. HbA1c testing is well tolerated, convenient and acceptable to patients, and GCB testing reduces time and liability obstacles for dental providers to conduct diabetes screening.

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

4.0
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