OBJECTIVE: To determine whether diabetes care characteristics and glycemic control differ by use of specialist care in a representative cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Health care, sociodemographic characteristics, and glycemic control were compared between participants in the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study who reported receiving specialist care (n = 212) and those who did not (n = 217). Specialist care was defined as having received care from an endocrinologist or diabetologist or diabetes clinic attendance during the last year. RESULTS: Patients who reported receiving specialist care were more likely to be female, to have an education level beyond high school, to have an annual household income >$20,000, and to have health insurance. Additionally, patients receiving specialist care were more likely to have received diabetes education during the previous 3 years, to have knowledge of HbAlc testing and to have received that test during the previous 6 months, to have knowledge of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial results, to self-monitor blood glucose, and to inject insulin more than twice daily. A lower HbA1 level was associated with specialist care versus generalist care (9.7 vs. 10.3%; P = 0.0006) as were higher education and income levels. Multivariate analyses suggest that the lower HbA1 levels observed in patients receiving specialist care were restricted to patients with an annual income >$20,000. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist care was associated with higher levels of participation in diabetes self-care practices and a lower HbA1 level. Future efforts should research and address the failure of patients with low incomes to benefit from specialist care.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether diabetes care characteristics and glycemic control differ by use of specialist care in a representative cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Health care, sociodemographic characteristics, and glycemic control were compared between participants in the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study who reported receiving specialist care (n = 212) and those who did not (n = 217). Specialist care was defined as having received care from an endocrinologist or diabetologist or diabetes clinic attendance during the last year. RESULTS:Patients who reported receiving specialist care were more likely to be female, to have an education level beyond high school, to have an annual household income >$20,000, and to have health insurance. Additionally, patients receiving specialist care were more likely to have received diabetes education during the previous 3 years, to have knowledge of HbAlc testing and to have received that test during the previous 6 months, to have knowledge of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial results, to self-monitor blood glucose, and to inject insulin more than twice daily. A lower HbA1 level was associated with specialist care versus generalist care (9.7 vs. 10.3%; P = 0.0006) as were higher education and income levels. Multivariate analyses suggest that the lower HbA1 levels observed in patients receiving specialist care were restricted to patients with an annual income >$20,000. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist care was associated with higher levels of participation in diabetes self-care practices and a lower HbA1 level. Future efforts should research and address the failure of patients with low incomes to benefit from specialist care.
Authors: Sarah K Lyons; Vicki S Helgeson; Selma F Witchel; Dorothy J Becker; Mary T Korytkowski Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: V S Helgeson; K A Reynolds; P R Snyder; D K Palladino; D J Becker; L Siminerio; O Escobar Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Huabin Luo; Gloria L A Beckles; Xinzhi Zhang; Sergey Sotnikov; Ted Thompson; Barbara Bardenheier Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2014 Jul-Aug
Authors: Marília B Gomes; Roberta A Cobas; Alessandra S Matheus; Lucianne R Tannus; Carlos Antonio Negrato; Melanie Rodacki; Neuza Braga; Marilena M Cordeiro; Jorge L Luescher; Renata S Berardo; Marcia Nery; Maria do Carmo A Arruda-Marques; Luiz E Calliari; Renata M Noronha; Thais D Manna; Lenita Zajdenverg; Roberta Salvodelli; Fernanda G Penha; Milton C Foss; Maria C Foss-Freitas; Antonio C Pires; Fernando C Robles; Mariadefátimas Guedes; Sergio A Dib; Patricia Dualib; Saulo C Silva; Janice Sepulvida; Henriqueta G Almeida; Emerson Sampaio; Rosangela Rea; Ana Cristina R Faria; Balduino Tschiedel; Suzana Lavigne; Gustavo A Cardozo; Mirela J Azevedo; Luis Henrique Canani; Alessandra T Zucatti; Marisa Helena C Coral; Daniela Aline Pereira; Luiz Antonio Araujo; Monica Tolentino; Hermelinda C Pedrosa; Flaviane A Prado; Nelson Rassi; Leticia B Araujo; Reine Marie C Fonseca; Alexis D Guedes; Odelissa S Matos; Manuel Faria; Rossana Azulay; Adriana C Forti; Cristina Façanha; Ana Paula Montenegro; Renan Montenegro; Naira H Melo; Karla F Rezende; Alberto Ramos; João Sooares Felicio; Flavia M Santos; Deborah L Jezini; Marilena M Cordeiro Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 3.320