Background: As part of an evaluation of an oral healthcare practice-based model that identifies patients with prediabetes or type-2 diabetes, this study reports on the proportion of patients identified with clinically confirmed type-2 diabetes (T2D)/prediabetes and barriers of implementation of the model. Methodology: Urban and rural oral healthcare practices were invited to participate. Participating practices invited eligible patients to participate in the screening program using the Australian Type-2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool (AUSDRISK). Participants were categorised as low, intermediate, or high-risk for prediabetes/T2D. Patients in the intermediate or high-risk category were referred to their General Medical Practitioner (GP) for further investigation. Results: Fifty-one oral healthcare practices and 76 Oral Health Professionals (OHP) participated (60 Dentists, 8 Dental Hygienists, 8 Oral Health Therapists). 797 patients were screened; 102 were low-risk; 331 intermediate-risk; and 364 high-risk for T2D. Of the 695 participants in the intermediate or high-risk groups, 386 (55.5%) were referred to their GP for T2D assessment. Of them, 96 (25.0%) results were returned to OHPs. Of the returned results, six were (6.3%) diagnosed with pre-T2D. Conclusion: Patients found to have undiagnosed T2D/prediabetes (6.3%) were within the expected range reported in the literature. Findings indicate that identifying individuals at an elevated risk of having or developing T2D is effective, feasible and could be incorporated into oral healthcare settings. However, this integration may require additional OHPs training and education to ensure that patients at elevated risk of T2D are referred for further assessment.

Background: As part of a larger study on the identification of undiagnosed Type 2 diabetes (T2D), and prediabetes patients in dental settings, this study explored oral healthcare professionals’ (OHP) attitudes with respect to the relevance and appropriateness of screening for prediabetes/T2D in general oral healthcare settings. It also aims to gain a deeper understanding of OHPs’ concerns and perceived barriers to screening for T2D. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 OHPs: eight dentists, two dental hygienists and one oral health therapist. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Themes that emerged from the interviews were organised under three major categories: 1) Implementation: OHPs willingness to screen for prediabetes/T2D; 2) Barriers to implementation of screenings; subdivided into: a) lack of knowledge and formal training about T2D screening methodology; b) concerns about patients’ awareness and acceptance of T2D screening in oral healthcare settings; c) costs and reimbursement for the time and resources required to screen patients; and d) legal and scope of practice; and 3) Collaboration and communication between OHPs and General practitioners (GP). Conclusions: The oral healthcare setting was considered as appropriate for medical screening, and OHPs were willing to participate in screening for prediabetes/T2D. Nonetheless, for the successful implementation of a screening programme, several barriers need to be addressed, and effective medical screening would require collaboration between oral health and medical and other health professionals, as well as clarification of legal and reimbursement issues.

With type 2 diabetes prevalence increasing in Australia, and the condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality, screening for dysglycaemia in the dental setting has been proposed to identify asymptomatic individuals. Screening commences with a risk assessment, and individuals identified at elevated risk for having diabetes are then referred to their medical practitioner for confirmation of their glycemic status. Therefore, for screening to be effective, individuals need to adhere to their oral health professionals’ (OHP) advice and attend their medical follow-ups. This review aims to investigate the literature on referral compliance following a risk assessment in the dental setting and identify barriers and facilitators to screened individuals’ referral compliance. A scoping review of the literature was undertaken, selecting studies of diabetes screening in a dental setting that recorded compliance to referral to follow-up, and explored any barriers and facilitators to adherence. Fourteen studies were selected. The referral compliance varied from 25 % to 90%. Six studies reported barriers and facilitators to attending medical follow-ups. Barriers identified included accessibility, cost, knowledge of the condition, and OHP characteristics.

Background: This study assesses the long-term cost-effectiveness of this screening protocol from a healthcare system perspective. Methods: Australians presenting to private oral healthcare practices recruited to the iDENTify study were included as the study population. A Markov model preceded by a decision tree was developed to assess the intervention’s long-term cost-effectiveness when rolled out to all eligible Australians, and measured against ‘no-intervention’ current practice. The model consisted of four health states: normoglycaemia; pre-diabetes; type 2 diabetes and death. Intervention reach of various levels (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%) were assessed. The model adopted a 30-year lifetime horizon and a 2020 reference year. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per annum. Results: If the intervention reached a minimum of 10% of the target population, over the lifetime time horizon, each screened participant would incur a cost of $38,462 and a gain of 10.564 QALYs, compared to $38,469 and 10.561 QALYs for each participant under current practice. Screening was associated with lower costs and higher benefits (a saving of $8 per person and 0.003 QALYs gained), compared to current standard practice without such screening. Between 8 and 34 type 2 diabetes cases would be avoided per 10,000 patients screened if the intervention were taken up by 10% to 40% of private oral healthcare practices. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. Conclusions: Implementing type 2 diabetes screening in the private oral healthcare setting using a simple risk assessment tool was demonstrated to be cost-saving. The wider adoption of such screening is recommended.

Background/Objectives: Early detection of undiagnosed prediabetes (PD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) could prevent or delay the onset of diabetes and its complications. The dental setting has been suggested as a location for expanding diabetes screening in primary care. This study aimed to investigate behavioural factors that influence an oral healthcare professional’s (OHP) participation in diabetes screening and their decision to refer individuals at a high risk of diabetes for medical follow-up and confirmatory diagnosis. These factors provide targets for future interventions to encourage screening implementation and increase referral guideline compliance. Methods: This qualitative study utilised OHPs who had participated in a diabetes screening trial in Victoria, Australia. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or videoconferencing and transcribed and analysed thematically. The themes identified were deductively mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results: In total, eight interviews were conducted (seven dentists and one oral health therapist). Five COM-B domains were identified: reflective motivation, automatic motivation, social opportunity, physical opportunity, and psychological capability. Nine TDF domains were associated with issues related to knowledge, the environmental context and resources, memory, attention and decision processes, skills, social influences, beliefs about consequences, emotion, beliefs about capability, and social influence. Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the factors influencing an OHP’s participation and decision making in diabetes screening and referral processes in the dental setting. The results demonstrate that OHPs need more education and training to screen for diabetes in dental clinics. This study represents the first step in developing interventions to target these factors and improve the effectiveness of diabetes screening in the dental setting.

Background: As the global incidence of diabetes continues to rise, expanding the scope of practice for primary healthcare professionals is essential in addressing the type 2 diabetes (T2D) epidemic. Oral health is bidirectionally linked to systemic health, and dentists are in a unique position to engage in preventative activities, such as disease screening. The aim of this study was to investigate first-year dental students’ perceptions of screening for diabetes, and to explore their intentions to implement screening on graduation. Methods: First-year dental students (n = 98) were asked to write an essay about their views and attitudes to diabetes screening in the dental setting. Consent was provided by 51 students for their essays to be thematically analysed. Results: The study found that students’ intentions to perform screening after graduation are shaped by their diabetes knowledge, views on screening protocols, awareness of professional roles, and experience with interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions: The dental setting is an ideal location for increasing opportunistic diabetes screening in primary care. Most first-year dental students viewed diabetes screening favourably and intended to implement after graduation. However, the study indicates changes in dental education and practice are required to equip students with the skills and knowledge needed for diabetes screening. The dental students that participated in this study represent the future dental professionals whose knowledge and attitudes to diabetes and disease screening will determine the future uptake of this initiative.