Background There have been no existing performance indicators to measure the overall quality of pharmacy services, including the aspects of drug management and clinical pharmacy services, at primary health centres in Indonesia. This study aimed to obtain these indicators based on a consensus of experts. Methods The modified Delphi method was used to obtain the consensus. The initial indicators, based on a literature review, were evaluated and assessed by members of the expert panel through three rounds of repetition until the consensus was reached. The expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge of or expertise in pharmacy service performance and geographical considerations. Analysis of the expert panel consensus level was determined by calculating the mean and interquartile range. Results Fifteen expert panel members started the first round (93.7% of the 16 targets) with 12 of them (75%) completing the third round of the modified Delphi method. Three expert panel members were representatives of the Regency Health Office, and the others were pharmacist practitioners at primary health centres from three different regencies. The consensus results were 26 indicators of drug management, 19 indicators of clinical pharmacy services, and two indicators of overall pharmacy performance. Conclusion The consensus indicators for measuring drug management, clinical pharmacy services, and overall pharmacy performance can be used as a reference and standard to measure the quality of pharmacy services at primary health centres. Therefore, the measurement results are more relevant if compared between one and other studies.

A diabetes risk score cannot directly be translated and applied in different populations, and its performance should be evaluated in the target population. This study aimed to translate the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) instrument and compare its performance with the modified version for detecting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and dysglycaemia among the Indonesian adult population. Forward and backward translations were performed and followed by cultural adaptation. In total, 1,403 participants were recruited. The FINDRISC-Bahasa Indonesia (FINDRISC-BI) was scored according to the original FINDRISC instrument, while a Modified FINDRISC-BI was analyzed using a specific body mass index and waist circumference classification for Indonesians. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and the optimal cut-offs of both instruments were estimated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for detecting undiagnosed T2DM was 0.73 (0.67–0.78) for the FINDRISC-BI with an optimal cut-off score of ≥9 (sensitivity = 63.0%; specificity = 67.3%) and 0.72 (0.67–0.78) for the Modified FINDRISC-BI with an optimal cut-off score of ≥11 (sensitivity = 59.8%; specificity = 74.9%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for detecting dysglycaemia was 0.72 (0.69–0.75) for the FINDRISC-BI instrument with an optimal cut-off score of ≥8 (sensitivity = 66.4%; specificity = 67.0%), and 0.72 (0.69–0.75) for the Modified FINDRISC-BI instrument with an optimal cut-off score ≥9 (sensitivity = 63.8%; specificity = 67.6%). The Indonesian version of the FINDRISC instrument has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for screening people with undiagnosed T2DM or dysglycaemia in Indonesia. Modifying the body mass index and waist circumference classifications in the Modified FINDRISC-BI results in a similar diagnostic accuracy; however, the Modified FINDRISC-BI has a higher optimal cut-off point than the FINDRISC-BI. People with an above optimal cut-off score are suggested to take a further blood glucose test.

Research on risk factors for diabetes (DM) is growing. Identification of these risk factors aims to prevent DM as early as possible. This study intends to identify the utilization of the Finnish diabetes risk score (FINDRISC) and its development using bibliometric analysis. The keywords “FINDRISC AND Diabetes” were used to search for articles published in 2005-2021 in PubMed. A total of 249 articles were analyzed based on the number of publications per year, journals that publish the papers, number of publications by author and year of publication, number of publications by affiliation and year of publication, number of publications by country of origin of authors and year of publication, number of keywords, number of citations, types of articles, specific topics, and theme mapping. The data visualization was obtained from the Scopus database and the VOSviewer and Biblioshiny applications. Despite the increase in publications, the number of publications on FINDRISC in DM patients is still very few per year, with 92.8% being the primary study. Based on clusters of the country of origin, publications are still dominated by researchers from countries in the European region, and the researchers intensely relate to each other through citations. Research themes related to FINDRISC are not limited to DM risk factors. This study is the first study of a bibliometric analysis of the utilization of FINRISC in DM patients. The analysis results can be used to evaluate existing research gaps and identify future research opportunities.