Why we studied diabetes screening uptake in Aceh, Indonesia

To mark World Diabetes Day 2025, we're revisiting recent learnings on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices around diabetes screening in Indonesia.
Why we studied diabetes screening uptake in Aceh, Indonesia
Like

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the URL to share elsewhere

This is a representation of how your post may appear on social media. The actual post will vary between social networks

Explore the Research

BioMed Central
BioMed Central BioMed Central

Hypertension and diabetes screening uptake in adults aged 40–70 in Indonesia: a knowledge, attitudes, and practices study - BMC Global and Public Health

Background Diabetes and hypertension are major global health crises, yet Indonesia is lagging behind in achieving care outcomes compared to other middle-income countries. We examined barriers to screening uptake, a key care entry point, in 40–70-year-old adults in Aceh, Indonesia. Methods We assessed individual-level data on diabetes and hypertension screenings in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar in 2019. Using two-stage random sampling, we collected survey data on 2080 adults that are indicated for, but had not undergone diabetes screening as per World Health Organization’s Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Intervention guidelines. Using this, we adjusted the data for complex survey design to describe (1) the share of respondents with screening indication and presence of risk factors; (2) disease-related knowledge, attitude, and practices, as well as (3) estimate associations of screening with socioeconomic characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes using multivariable linear and logistic regression. Results We found that while respondents were aware of diabetes and hypertension, a majority lacked knowledge about leading risk factors, the conditions’ potentially asymptomatic nature, and screening needs. About 41% of respondents never had any blood pressure or glucose check, the primary reason reported being not feeling ill. Blood glucose checks were rarely conducted. We found rural location and lower education to be associated with lower disease-related knowledge, and lower wealth with lower knowledge and screening uptake. Conclusions Barriers to screening uptake in Aceh, Indonesia, include misconceptions around hypertension and diabetes, provider-specific challenges especially around the provision of glucose testing, and socioeconomic gradients.

The story behind the research

A picture of the flag of Indonesia in the city of Banda Aceh
Banda Aceh, Indonesia

When we started our research project in 2019, the ambition of Indonesia’s health system was clear: free, community-based screening services for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as hypertension and diabetes were rolled out broadly — every community health center (“Puskesmas”) and many village level “Posbindu” (health posts) offered screening. Yet, uptake remained surprisingly low.

We began asking: why? If the financial and logistical barriers are largely addressed (i.e. screenings are free and local), what holds people back from actually going? Are there knowledge gaps? Misconceptions? Attitudes that deter action? And how much does socioeconomic status or education play a role in who gets screened?

Our aim was to probe these barriers, from the perspective of the individuals—their knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors (KAP)—in a representative sample of adults aged 40–70 who should be screened per WHO PEN guidelines but who had not been recently screened. We believed that a deeper understanding of these “demand-side” obstacles could inform better strategies to close the gap in screening uptake, beyond just increasing supply.

Our approach

To explore these questions, we conducted a cross-sectional, population-based survey across the Indonesian province of Aceh in our paper "Hypertension and diabetes screening uptake in adults aged 40–70 in Indonesia: a knowledge, attitudes, and practices study". Using a two-stage cluster random sampling design, we selected 152 villages to capture a mix of urban and rural contexts and recruited adults aged 40 to 70 years — the target group for hypertension and diabetes screening under national guidelines. The study ultimately included 2,080 respondents, providing one of the largest datasets to date on community-level NCD screening behavior in Indonesia.

Data were collected through structured face-to-face interviews led by trained local enumerators. The questionnaire, adapted from WHO’s STEPS framework and national health surveys, captured four domains:

  1. Sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., education, income, residence);
  2. Knowledge of hypertension and diabetes risk factors and screening needs;
  3. Attitudes toward preventive screening and perceived personal risk; and
  4. Practices related to past screening experiences and health-seeking behaviors.

What stood out to us most

One of the most striking findings was that about 41% of respondents had never had any blood pressure or glucose check—despite free, local screening availability. Whenever respondents had been screened before, blood pressure checks were far more common than glucose checks: nearly everybody had a blood pressure measurement, but only ~21% had a blood glucose check in their last screening. That suggests that hypertension screening may be more opportunistically integrated into health encounters. In contrast, glucose testing often requires more resources, lab support, or is treated as a conditional add-on, not standard care.

We found critical gaps in the understanding of diabetes and hypertension: while most respondents were aware of these conditions, many did not know about which lifestyles may lead to diabetes and hypertension nor that they can start off ‘silently’ – without any symptoms. Instead, it was commonly believed that only those feeling ill should undergo screening.

We also saw clear socioeconomic gradients: living in rural areas, having lower education, and being in lower wealth quintiles were all strongly associated with lower knowledge and lower screening uptake. It reinforced our belief that universal access alone is not sufficient; equity in health demands addressing awareness, beliefs, and social determinants.

What this means going forward

From our work, several actionable lessons emerge:

  1. Make screening guidelines and risk messaging more salient
    Many people don’t see screening as relevant unless symptoms arise. Health education campaigns need to stress that hypertension and diabetes can be “silent” and that people without symptoms should still be screened.
  2. Differentiate strategies for hypertension vs. diabetes
    The barriers appear disease‐specific—blood pressure measurements seem more normalized in care contexts, while glucose testing is rarely routine. Tailored strategies may be needed for each, including that health systems could equip more frontline facilities with affordable point-of-care glucose devices and protocols.
  3. Leverage trusted community platforms
    Posbindu screening posts were underutilized (only 9% of last screenings) despite being very local. Strengthening their visibility, reducing resource constraints, and reframing usage so people don’t dismiss them as for “the elderly only” could help.
  4. Target disadvantaged groups with additional support
    Lower-educated, rural, and lower-wealth individuals lag in both knowledge and uptake. Interventions (e.g. community outreach, peer education, mobile reminders) should especially prioritize those groups.

We hope our work helps health planners in Indonesia — and other settings with persistent gaps in NCD screening — in their efforts to holistically bridge the last mile: not just offering services, but ensuring they are seen, understood, trusted, and accessible by everyone. While there are some evidence-based approaches on how to achieve this (also see our paper on the effect of SMS reminders on diabetes and hypertension screening uptake in the same study population), more large-scale, effective, and innovative ideas are needed to ensure NCD care for all!

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Follow the Topic

Global Health
Humanities and Social Sciences > Society > Sociology > Health, Medicine and Society > Global Health
Type 2 Diabetes
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Clinical Medicine > Diseases > Diabetes > Type 2 Diabetes
Health Care
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Health Care

Related Collections

With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.

Health inequalities and meeting the needs of sexual and gender minority groups

BMC Global and Public Health is calling for submissions to our Collection on addressing health disparities in minority populations. This Collection seeks to explore the multifaceted challenges faced by sexual and gender minority (SGM) groups worldwide, examining the intersecting factors that contribute to health inequalities and the strategies for effectively meeting their needs.

By fostering dialogue and collaboration among researchers, policymakers, healthcare providers, and community advocates, this Collection aims to advance knowledge on topics such as:

Understanding the social, psychosocial, material and other determinants of health affecting sexual and gender minority populations

Identifying barriers to healthcare access and utilization among SGM individuals

Examining the impact of stigma, discrimination, and violence on the health of SGM communities

Assessing the effectiveness of policies and interventions aimed at reducing health disparities among SGM groups

Exploring innovative approaches to promoting health equity and inclusion for sexual and gender minorities

Investigating the role of healthcare providers and institutions in addressing the unique health needs of SGM populations

We encourage work from local, regional, national, and global partnerships and collaboration among multidisciplinary scientists using multiple methodologies. We ask that authors be careful to use non-stigmatizing/preferred language in their manuscripts as outlined in relevant language guidelines for their respective fields.

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3: Good Health & Well-Being, SDG 5: Gender Equality, and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, highlighting the importance of achieving health equity for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

All manuscripts submitted to this journal, including those submitted to collections and special issues, are assessed in line with our editorial policies and the journal’s peer-review process. Reviewers and editors are required to declare competing interests and can be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Jan 31, 2026

Food security, nutrition, and dietary trends

BMC Global and Public Health is calling for submissions to our Collection on food security, nutrition, and dietary trends. These are interconnected elements that profoundly impact global health and well-being. As the world grapples with rapid population growth, climate change, and economic disparities, the challenges surrounding food access, quality, and sustainability have intensified. This Collection aims to gather diverse research that examines these complex relationships, focusing on how dietary patterns, food availability, and nutritional status influence overall health outcomes. By exploring the multifaceted nature of food systems, this Collection seeks to showcase pathways to achieve improved food security and nutritional health worldwide.

The goal of this Collection is to build a comprehensive body of knowledge that informs policy and practice. We encourage submissions that investigate:

Impact of dietary patterns on health outcomes

Addressing food insecurity through policy

Role of ultra-processed foods in nutrition

Personalized nutrition and dietary therapy

Nutritional supplements for malnutrition

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being.

We encourage work from local, regional, national, and global partnerships and collaboration among multidisciplinary scientists using multiple methodologies. We ask that authors be careful to use non-stigmatizing/preferred language in their manuscripts as outlined in relevant language guidelines for their respective fields.

All manuscripts submitted to this journal, including those submitted to collections and special issues, are assessed in line with our editorial policies and the journal’s peer-review process. Reviewers and editors are required to declare competing interests and can be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Feb 28, 2026