We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Screening for diabetes in unconventional locations : resource implications and economics of screening in optometry practices.

Howse, J.H. and Jones, S. and Hungin, A.P.S. (2011) 'Screening for diabetes in unconventional locations : resource implications and economics of screening in optometry practices.', Health policy., 102 (2-3). pp. 193-199.


Objectives: Unconventional locations outwith general medical practice may prove opportunities for screening. The aim was to determine the resource implications and economics of a screening service using random capillary blood glucose (rCBG) tests to detect raised blood glucose levels in the 'at risk' population attending high street optometry practices. Method: A screening service was implemented in optometry practices in North East England: the cost of the service and the implication of different screening strategies was estimated. Results: The cost of a screening test was £5.53–£11.20, depending on the screening strategy employed and who carried out the testing. Refining the screening strategy to target those ≥40years with BMI of ≥25kg/m2 and/or family history of diabetes resulted in a cost per case referred to the GP of £14.38–£26.36. Implementing this strategy in half of optometric practices in England would have the potential to identify up to 150,000 new cases of diabetes and prediabetes a year. Conclusions: Optometry practices provide an effective way of identifying people who would benefit from further investigation for diabetes. Effectiveness could be improved further by improving cooperation and communication between optometrists and medical practitioners.

Item Type:Article
Keywords:Type 2 diabetes, Screening, Optometry.
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Health policy. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Health policy, 102 (2-3), 2011, 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.07.005
Date accepted:No date available
Date deposited:16 April 2013
Date of first online publication:October 2011
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar