↓ Skip to main content

Effect of screening for type 2 diabetes on healthcare costs: a register-based study among 139,075 individuals diagnosed with diabetes in Denmark between 2001 and 2009

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
24 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of screening for type 2 diabetes on healthcare costs: a register-based study among 139,075 individuals diagnosed with diabetes in Denmark between 2001 and 2009
Published in
Diabetologia, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00125-018-4594-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camilla Sortsø, Anastasija Komkova, Annelli Sandbæk, Simon J. Griffin, Martha Emneus, Torsten Lauritzen, Rebecca K. Simmons

Abstract

Trials have not demonstrated benefits to the population of screening for type 2 diabetes. However, there may be cost savings for those found to have diabetes. We therefore aimed to compare healthcare costs among individuals with incident type 2 diabetes in a screened group with those in an unscreened group. In this register-based, non-randomised controlled trial, eligible individuals were men and women aged 40-69 years without known diabetes who were registered with a general practice in Denmark (n = 1,912,392). Between 2001 and 2006, 153,107 individuals registered with 181 practices participating in the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)-Denmark study were sent a diabetes risk-score questionnaire. Individuals with a moderate-to-high risk were invited to visit their family doctor for assessment of diabetes status and cardiovascular risk (screening group). The 1,759,285 individuals registered with all other practices in Denmark constituted the retrospectively constructed no-screening (control) group. In this post hoc analysis, we identified individuals from the screening and no-screening groups who were diagnosed with diabetes between 2001 and 2009 (n = 139,075). Using national registry data, we quantified the cost of healthcare services in these two groups between 2001 and 2012. From a healthcare sector perspective, we estimated the potential healthcare cost savings for individuals with diabetes that were attributable to the screening programme. In the screening group, 27,177 of 153,107 individuals (18% of those sent a risk-score questionnaire) attended for screening, 1533 of whom were diagnosed with diabetes. Between 2001 and 2009, 13,992 people were newly diagnosed with diabetes in the screening group (including those diagnosed by screening) and 125,083 in the no-screening group. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the screening group compared with the no-screening group (difference in mean total annual healthcare costs -€889 per individual with incident diabetes; 95% CI -€1196, -€581). The screening programme was associated with a cost saving per person with incident diabetes over a 5-year period of €2688 (95% CI €1421, €3995). Healthcare costs were lower among individuals with incident type 2 diabetes in the screened group compared with the unscreened group. The relatively modest cost of screening per person discovered to have developed diabetes was offset within 2 years by savings in the healthcare system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 27%
Student > Master 4 18%
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 13 59%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#554,422
of 13,653,497 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#361
of 3,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,786
of 271,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#18
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,653,497 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.