Effectiveness of different outreach strategies to identify individuals at high risk of diabetes in a heterogeneous population: a study in the Swedish municipality of S？dert？lje

Identifying type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a prerequisite for the institution of preventive measures to reduce future micro and macrovascular complications. Approximately 50% of people with T2DM are undiagnosed, challenging the assumption that a traditional primary healthcare setting is the most efficient way to reach people at risk of T2DM. A setting of this kind may be even more suboptimal when it comes to reaching immigrants, who often appear to have inferior access to healthcare and/or are less likely to attend routine health checks at primary healthcare centres. The objective of this study was to identify the best strategy to reach individuals at high risk of T2DM and thereby cardiovascular disease in a heterogeneous population. All 18–65-year-old inhabitants in the Swedish municipality of S？dert？lje (n～51,000) without known T2DM and cardiovascular disease were encouraged to complete the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC: score？>？15 indicating a high and？>？20 a very high risk of future T2DM and cardiovascular disease) through the following communication channels: primary care centres, workplaces, Syrian orthodox churches, pharmacies, crowded public places, mass media, social media and mail. Data collection lasted for six weeks. The highest response rate was obtained through workplaces (27%) and the largest proportion of respondents at high/very high risk through the Syrian orthodox churches (18%). The proportion reached through primary care centres was 4%, of whom 5% were at elevated risk. The cost of identifying a person at elevated risk through the Syrian orthodox church was €104 compared with €8 through workplaces and €112 through primary care centres. The choice of communication channels was important to reach high/very high-risk individuals for T2DM and for screening costs. In this immigrant-dense community, primary care centres were inferior to strategies using workplaces and churches in terms of both the proportion of identified at-risk individuals and costs