Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Author Spotlight: Developing a Point-of-Care Hemoglobin Estimation Method for Anemia Management
Published on: January 19, 2024
Comparison of two methods for assessing diabetes risk in a pharmacy setting in Australia
Monique F Kilkenny1, Roslyn Johnson, Nadine E Andrew
1Stroke and Ageing Research School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Level 1/43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, 3168 Melbourne, VIC, Australia. monique.kilkenny@monash.edu.
Background:
Since 2007, the Australian Know your numbers (KYN) program has been used in community settings to raise awareness about blood pressure and stroke. In 2011, the program was modified to include assessment for type 2 diabetes risk. However, it is unclear which approach for assessing diabetes risk in pharmacies is best. We compared two methods: random (non-fasting) blood glucose testing (RBGT); and the Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool (AUSDRISK); according to 1) identification of 'high risk' participants including head-to-head sensitivity and specificity; 2) number of referrals to doctors; and 3) feasibility of implementation.
Methods:
117 Queensland pharmacies voluntarily participated and were randomly allocated to RBGT and AUSDRISK or AUSDRISK only. Although discouraged, pharmacies were able to change allocated group prior to commencement. AUSDRISK is a validated self-administered questionnaire used to calculate a score that determines the 5-year risk of developing type 2 diabetes. AUSDRISK (score 12+) or RBGT (≥5.6 mmol/I) indicates a high potential risk of diabetes. Median linear regression was used to compare the two measures. Staff from 68 pharmacies also participated in a semi-structured interview during a site visit to provide feedback.
Results:
Data were submitted for 5,483 KYN participants (60% female, 66% aged >55 years, 10% history of diabetes). Approximately half of the participants without existing diabetes were identified as 'high risk' based on either RBGT or AUSDRISK score. Among participants who undertook both measures, 32% recorded a high RBGT and high AUSDRISK. There was a significant association between RBGT and AUSDRISK scores. For every one point increase in AUSDRISK score there was a half point increase in RBGT levels (coefficient 0.55, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.83). Pharmacy staff reported that AUSDRISK was a simple, low cost and efficient method of assessing diabetes risk compared with RBGT, e.g. since management of sharps is not an issue.
Conclusions:
In a large, community-based sample of Australians about half of the participants without diabetes were at 'high risk 'of developing diabetes based on either AUSDRISK or RBGT results. AUSDRISK was considered to be an acceptable method for assessing the risk of diabetes using opportunistic health checks in community pharmacies.
More Related Videos
04:46'Boden Food Plate': Novel Interactive Web-based Method for the Assessment of Dietary Intake
Published on: September 18, 2018
06:50A High-Throughput Electrochemiluminescence 7-Plex Assay Simultaneously Screening for Type 1 Diabetes and Multiple Autoimmune Diseases
Published on: May 29, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Type II Diabetes Mellitus III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis
Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 and Gestational
Assessment of blood pressure in brachial artery(two-step method)
Measurement of Bioavailability: Pharmacodynamic Methods
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...