This study was carried out to validate the prevalence of known diabetes estimated from three different simultaneous sources (medical records from out-patient departments, registers and pharmaceutical prescriptions) as against the diagnosis of family doctors who had received ad hoc training before the study. To this effect, a selected Local Health Unit (Unità Sanitaria Locale or USL) in Bari, southern Italy, was examined. 2917 diabetic patients were found, with a 2.82% prevalence. The prevalence of known diabetes estimated from separate sources was 1.41% from medical records, 1.52% from the registers and 1.59% from prescriptions. With reference to the family doctor's conclusions, sensitivity, positive predictive value and efficiency of medical records were 49.8%, 92.5% and 57.4% of USL registers 53.8%, 95.6% and 61.8% of prescriptions 56.3%, 71.2% and 47.9%. 46% of the diabetic subjects were only identified from one source. In conclusion, by combining several sources of information together, a higher number of diabetic patients are identified than would be done by using separate sources; also, active cooperation from the family practitioners seems to be needed to correct the large number of false positive patients (n = 798) mostly identified from prescriptions.

Combining three different souces of as a valid tool to identify known diabetic patients: use in a prevalence study in an Italian Local Health Unit

DE PERGOLA, Giovanni;
1996-01-01

Abstract

This study was carried out to validate the prevalence of known diabetes estimated from three different simultaneous sources (medical records from out-patient departments, registers and pharmaceutical prescriptions) as against the diagnosis of family doctors who had received ad hoc training before the study. To this effect, a selected Local Health Unit (Unità Sanitaria Locale or USL) in Bari, southern Italy, was examined. 2917 diabetic patients were found, with a 2.82% prevalence. The prevalence of known diabetes estimated from separate sources was 1.41% from medical records, 1.52% from the registers and 1.59% from prescriptions. With reference to the family doctor's conclusions, sensitivity, positive predictive value and efficiency of medical records were 49.8%, 92.5% and 57.4% of USL registers 53.8%, 95.6% and 61.8% of prescriptions 56.3%, 71.2% and 47.9%. 46% of the diabetic subjects were only identified from one source. In conclusion, by combining several sources of information together, a higher number of diabetic patients are identified than would be done by using separate sources; also, active cooperation from the family practitioners seems to be needed to correct the large number of false positive patients (n = 798) mostly identified from prescriptions.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/63293
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact