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.

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.

Objectives: As part of an evaluation of an oral healthcare practice-based model that identifies patients with prediabetes or type-2 diabetes (T2D), this study reports on the experiences and opinions of oral health professionals and patients on the screening program. Methodology: Urban and rural oral healthcare practices were invited to participate. Participating practices invited eligible patients to participate in the screening program. Patients were categorised as low, intermediate, or high-risk for prediabetes/T2D. Patients in the intermediate or high-risk category were referred to their general practitioner (GP) for further investigation. Post-screening surveys were used to assess acceptability, barriers and facilitators of the screening program among participating oral health professionals (OHP) and patients. Results: The post-screening survey was completed by 135 patient, and 38 OHPs (i.e., dentists, dental hygienists, oral health therapists). the majority of OHPs (94.6%) who delivered the protocol were satisfied with the approach. Most patients reported satisfaction with the approach (73.2%) and would recommend it to others. Several barriers for implementation were identified by OHPs and patients. Conclusion: OHPs feedback indicated that the screening model was generally acceptable. The feedback from patients following their participation in this study was overwhelmingly positive, indicating that the screening protocols were accepted by patients.

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.