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.

Urbanization and health: Addressing key challenges

BMC Global and Public Health is calling for submissions to our Collection on identifying and addressing the key health conditions associated with urbanization. As the global population increasingly gravitates towards urban areas, understanding the health implications of this trend becomes paramount. Urbanization brings about a myriad of health challenges, including but not limited to infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, environmental health hazards, mental health issues, and disparities in healthcare access and quality.

This Collection aims to explore the complex interplay between urbanization and health, with a focus on identifying the key health conditions prevalent in urban settings and developing effective strategies to address them. We welcome contributions from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers that shed light on the following aspects:

Epidemiology of health conditions associated with urbanization, including trends, patterns, and risk factors

Social determinants of health in urban areas and their impact on health outcomes

Innovations in urban health surveillance, monitoring, and data analysis

Interventions and policies to prevent and control urban health challenges, with an emphasis on equity and sustainability

Community engagement and participatory approaches to promoting urban health and well-being

Cross-disciplinary research and collaborations to address urban health issues from multiple perspectives

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

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: Dec 28, 2025

Empowering the public health workforce

BMC Global and Public Health is calling for submissions to our Collection on advancing the recognition of the public health workforce. This Collection seeks to explore various dimensions of the public health workforce, including its roles, challenges, and contributions to global health outcomes. We invite research that sheds light on the evolving landscape of the public health workforce and its impact on population health, such as:

Training and education programs

Skill acquisition and competency frameworks

Professional development pathways

Strategies for promoting diversity and addressing disparities in the public health workforce representation

Inclusive practices for fostering a supportive work environment

Addressing mental health issues among public health professionals

Strengthening health system infrastructure and human resources planning

Sustainable funding mechanisms for workforce investments

Policy frameworks for regulating the public health workforce

Ethical considerations in workforce management and decision-making

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities by highlighting the importance of a skilled and diverse public health workforce in achieving global health equity and sustainable development goals.

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 30, 2026