Risk accuracy of type 2 diabetes in middle aged adults: Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, psychological and behavioural factors.

The sample came from one location in the United Kingdom and was mostly white middle-aged adults, so it may not apply to other ethnic or age groups. Participants were excluded if they had diabetes, a terminal illness with less than one year prognosis, a psychotic illness, were pregnant or lactating, or could not walk unaided, so the findings may not apply to people with these conditions. Twenty participants (5.3%) had missing risk accuracy data, and some analyses included fewer participants, for example 365 immediately after feedback. The study may not have been powered enough to detect small associations with risk misperception. Perceived risk was measured with one 0 to 100 question and did not include a do not know option, so it may not capture how people really understand risk. The risk estimate was delivered with standard lifestyle advice, so this analysis cannot separate the effect of the risk estimate from the advice. The authors used a strict p < 0.001 threshold because many comparisons were made, so weaker associations cannot be ruled out.

No conflicts of interest were declared. The Diabetes Risk Communication Trial was supported by the Medical Research Council, the European Union and the National Institute for Health Research, and the funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, report writing or submission decision.

Do not conclude that giving a patient a type 2 diabetes risk estimate will make their risk perception accurate in the long term. Accuracy rose immediately after feedback but fell by eight weeks, and most participants still overestimated their risk.