diabetes mellitus

1. LKNU FOR DM
(Lembaga Kesehatan Nahdlatul Ulama for Diabetus Mellitus)

2. Goal
•Improving the general health status
among people with diabetes and
those at risk in Indonesia through
awareness raising, health education,
community engagement and
improved diabetes care in NU
supported clinics.

3. Location

4. Activities
Term 1
Baseline assessment
Provide training to
cadres and religious
leaders
Raise community
awareness through
screening by cadres
Term 2
Provide training to
health workers
Revise diabetes CIE
Term 3
Provide advocacy
training
Engage journalist and
media groups for
diabetes prevention and
awareness on WDD

5. Registration
Interview
about
diabetes
history and
healthy
behaviour
Measeure for
BMI and waist
circumference
Blood
preasure
check and
random blood
glucose
Education
Screening Flow

6. High risk
result on
screening
caders
Clinic
Puskesmas
Referred to
Screening Process

7. 24,235 people screened by cadres
7,622 people with hypertension and 1,521 people with IGT
(Impaired Glucose Test)
3,568 people checked by health workers (559 people with IGT)
Results

8. The total number of
people with IGT checked
by health workers in
Blitar 254 and Depok
128
Endline assessment
(Health seeking
behavior of person with
IGT in Blitar and Depok)

9. Population and Sample
Population
• The number of people with IGT checked
by health workers: 382 respondents
Sample
• The number of sample: in Blitar and
Depok: 220 respondents (Blitar 154
respondents and Depok 66 respondents)

10. • Angka penduduk
• Target skrining
• Capaian skrining

11. Method
- Cross sectional
- purposive sampling
- Primary data
- Respondent assembled at some points and household

12. Results
Univariate Analysis
No Variable N= 220 %
1 Age group(in years)
15-59 117 53.2
≥60 103 46.8
2 Gender
Male 41 18.6
Female 179 81.4
3
Highest educational
attainment
Never attended to
school
10 4.5
Not completed in
elementary
35 15.9
Elementary 84 38.2
Junior high scholl 47 21.4
Senior high school 30 13.6
Diploma 4 1.8
Post-graduate 10 4.5
4 Employment
Jobless 37 16.8
Housewife 111 50.5
Employee 4 1.8
Entrepreneur 23 10.5
Etc (farmer, labor,
tailor,etc)
45 20.5

13. No Variabel N= 220 %
1 Family history of diabetes 67 30.5
2 Respondent history of diabetes 101 45.9
3 Knowledge about DM
low 115 52.3
high 105 47.7
4 Respondabout DM
lack 99 45
good 121 55

14. Health seeking behavior of person with
IGT
N= 220 %
Health services 166 75.5
Alternative 2 0.9
Pharmacy 20 9.1
Do nothing 32 14.5

15. Type of health services N= 166 %
Puskesmas 92 41.8
Doctor practice 10 4.5
Goverment hospital 11 5
Private hospital 11 5
Clinic 20 9.1
Midwife 17 7.7
etc (Polindes, Pustu) 5 2.3

16. The reason not attendedto health services N= 166 %
Too far away 1 0.5
symptoms are not serious 9 4.1
Fear to know the dieseas 2 0.9
Wasting time 2 0.9
Busy 7 3.2
Etc (no one to pick up, too much medicine,
can buy the medicine by theirself, control IGT
with diet)
33 15

17. No Enabling factors N= 165 %
1 Access to health services 153 69.5
2 Affordability of cost 163 74.1
3 Quality of services
Comfort of waiting room 159 72.3
Easy procedure 160 72.7
Free cost 123 55.9
Hospitality of health workers 160 72.7

18. No Variabel N= 220 %
1 Information exposure 198 90
2 Source of information
health workers 157 71.4
3 The most information gained
DM medical treatment 108 49.1
How to prevent and control
diabetes
108 49.1
4 The most media preferred
socialization/lecture 167 75.9

19. No Reinforcing factors N= 220 %
1 Family
cost, medicine, dll (instrumental) 80 36.4
Assistance 117 53.2
Attention 129 58.6
Medicinal treatment advice 105 47.7
Information 81 36.8
2 Cadres
cost, medicine, dll (instrumental) 16 7.3
Assistance 6 2.7
Attention 52 23.6
Medicinal treatment advice 81 36.8
Information 91 41.4
3 Religion andcommunity leaders
cost, medicine, dll (instrumental) 8 3.6
Assistance 8 3.6
Attention 32 14.5
Medicinal treatment advice 45 20.5
Information 31 14.1

20. No
(N= 54)
Yes
(N=166)
Information exposure
Yes 10 (45.5%) 12 (54.5%) 2.917 1.182-7.2 0.032
No 44 (22.2%) 154 (77.8%)
OR 95% CI pvalue
Enabling factor
Attendedto health services
Bivariate Analysis

21. No
(N= 54)
Yes
(N=166)
Family
No 42 (38.5%) 67 (61.5%) 5.172 2.536-10.546 0.000
Yes 12 (10.8%) 99 (89.2%)
Cadres
No 42 (25.9%) 120 (74.1%) 1.342 0.649-2.773 0.537
Yes 12 (20.7%) 46 (79.3%)
Religion andcommunity leaders
No 45 (30%) 105 (70%) 2.905 1.329-6.35 0.01
Yes 9 (12.9%) 61 (87.1%)
Reinforcing factors
Attendedto health services
OR 95% CI pvalue

22. Multvariate Analysis
Lower Upper
Respond .567 .342 2.757 1 .097 1.763 .903 3.444
Family support 1.680 .372 20.368 1 .000 5.367 2.587 11.133
Religion and
community
leaders support
1.147 .418 7.525 1 .006 3.150 1.388 7.151
Constant -3.536 .917 14.876 1 .000 .029
Sig. Exp(B)
S.E. Wald df
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
B
Variable