PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between degree of rurality and glucose (hemoglobin A1c), blood pressure (BP), and lipid (LDL) control among patients with diabetes. METHODS: Descriptive study; 1,649 patients in 205 rural practices in the United States. Patients' residence ZIP codes defined degree of rurality (Rural-Urban Commuting Areas codes). Outcomes were measures of acceptable control (A1c < = 9%, BP < 140/90 mmHg, LDL < 130 mg/dL) and optimal control (A1c < 7%, BP < 130/80 mmHg, LDL < 100 mg/dL). Statistical significance was set at P < .008 (Bonferroni's correction). FINDINGS: Although the proportion of patients with reasonable A1c control worsened by increasing degree of rurality, the differences were not statistically significant (urban 90%, large rural 88%, small rural 85%, isolated rural 83%; P = .10); mean A1c values also increased by degree of rurality, although not statistically significant (urban 7.2 [SD 1.6], large rural 7.3 [SD 1.7], small rural 7.5 [SD 1.8], isolated rural 7.5 [SD 1.9]; P = .16). We observed no differences between degree of rural and reasonable BP or LDL control (P = .42, P = .23, respectively) or optimal A1c or BP control (P = .52, P = .65, respectively). Optimal and mean LDL values worsened as rurality increased (P = .08, P = .029, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes who seek care in the rural Southern United States, we observed no relationship between degree of rurality of patients' residence and traditional measures of quality of care. Further examination of the trends and explanatory factors for relative worsening of metabolic control by increasing degree of rurality is warranted.
PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between degree of rurality and glucose (hemoglobin A1c), blood pressure (BP), and lipid (LDL) control among patients with diabetes. METHODS: Descriptive study; 1,649 patients in 205 rural practices in the United States. Patients' residence ZIP codes defined degree of rurality (Rural-Urban Commuting Areas codes). Outcomes were measures of acceptable control (A1c < = 9%, BP < 140/90 mmHg, LDL < 130 mg/dL) and optimal control (A1c < 7%, BP < 130/80 mmHg, LDL < 100 mg/dL). Statistical significance was set at P < .008 (Bonferroni's correction). FINDINGS: Although the proportion of patients with reasonable A1c control worsened by increasing degree of rurality, the differences were not statistically significant (urban 90%, large rural 88%, small rural 85%, isolated rural 83%; P = .10); mean A1c values also increased by degree of rurality, although not statistically significant (urban 7.2 [SD 1.6], large rural 7.3 [SD 1.7], small rural 7.5 [SD 1.8], isolated rural 7.5 [SD 1.9]; P = .16). We observed no differences between degree of rural and reasonable BP or LDL control (P = .42, P = .23, respectively) or optimal A1c or BP control (P = .52, P = .65, respectively). Optimal and mean LDL values worsened as rurality increased (P = .08, P = .029, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes who seek care in the rural Southern United States, we observed no relationship between degree of rurality of patients' residence and traditional measures of quality of care. Further examination of the trends and explanatory factors for relative worsening of metabolic control by increasing degree of rurality is warranted.
Authors: Maria O Celaya; Ethan M Berke; Tracy L Onega; Jiang Gui; Bruce L Riddle; Sai S Cherala; Judy R Rees Journal: Rural Remote Health Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Jennifer G Twombly; K M Venkat Narayan; David D Koch; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Katie Crenshaw; William Curry; Amanda H Salanitro; Monika M Safford; Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; Carlos A Estrada Journal: Acad Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Pamela Payne Foster; Jessica H Williams; Carlos A Estrada; John C Higginbotham; Mukesha L Voltz; Monika M Safford; Jeroan Allison Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Walter B Hollow; Susan Casey; L Gary Hart; Eric H Larson; Kelly Moore; Ervin Lewis; C Holly A Andrilla; David C Grossman Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Jimmy Pruitt; Carolina Moracho-Vilrriales; Tiffaney Threatt; Sarah Wagner; Jun Wu; E Alfonso Romero-Sandoval Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 3.133