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.

Background Despite a global decline in new HIV/AIDS cases in low-middle countries, cases are increasing in Indonesia. Low knowledge about the disease among the general population is one of the major factors responsible for this trend. Indonesia does not have a validated instrument to assess HIV/AIDS knowledge. The HIV Knowledge Questionnaire-18 (HIV-KQ-18) has been translated into several languages and is one of the most extensively used instruments for assessing HIV/AIDS knowledge. This paper describes the process of adapting and validating the HIV-KQ-18, an instrument to assess the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge in the general population of Indonesia. Methods In the adaptation phase, feedback for the initial Bahasa Indonesia version was gathered from two HIV activists, an obstetrician, two general practitioners, and 60 pilot participants. At the validation stage, we distributed the instrument link via Google Form to 6 major regions in Indonesia. Validity was measured using known-group validity and construct validity. The construct validity was assessed using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a polychoric correlation matrix. Cronbach’s alpha was used to analyze the internal consistency. Results Based on the findings in the adaptation phase, additional descriptions (namely synonyms or examples) were added to 6 items to make them more understandable. In the validation phase, 1,249 participants were recruited. The a priori hypothesis in known-group validity was supported. We also found three items that did not meet the construct validity. Based on the acceleration factor approach to interpret the scree tree in the factor analysis, using only two factors was preferable. Cronbach's alpha values were 0.75 and 0.71 representing good internal reliability. Conclusion The HIV-KQ-18 Bahasa Indonesia is considered a valid and reliable instrument to assess the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge in Indonesia.

Background Graves’ disease (GD) is an autoimmune disease, and it accounts for major cases of hyperthyroidism. Antibody against thyroid‐stimulating hormone receptor/TSHR (TRAb) is responsible for hyperthyroidism and is considered as a diagnostic marker for GD. Therefore, we developed a recombinant protein of human TSHR‐169 (hTSHR‐169), which was specifically recognized TRAb in the serum of GD patients and then compare the diagnostic performance between ELISA and dot blot of TRAb tests for their ability to diagnose GD. Methods 20 GD patients and 20 healthy individuals from the Indonesian population were enrolled. TRAb concentration and density were quantified. Comparative analysis was performed using receiver‐operating curve (ROC) analysis. Results For dot blot assay, the minimum concentration to detect TRAb requiring 100 ng of antigen with antiserum diluted at 1:60. For diagnosing GD, the ELISA yielded a higher AUC compared with the dot blot assay (0.95 and 0.85, respectively). Using the recommended cutoff values, the efficiency of both assays was examined by comparing the specificity and sensitivity of the assays to the clinical diagnosis. The ELISA showed 80% and 95%, while the dot blot assay showed 70% and 95% sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Conclusion Although the dot blot assay exhibited lower performance than the ELISA method, the dot blot assay is a simple and rapid diagnostic assay that is suitable for diagnosing GD in rural areas, in which healthcare facilities sometimes are not accessible.