Amy B Curtis1, Catherine Kothari, Rajib Paul, Elyse Connors. 1. Western Michigan University, College of Health & Human Services, Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA. amy.curtis@wmich.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To efficiently help communities prevent and manage diabetes, health departments need to be able to target populations with high risk but low resources. To aid in this process, we mapped county-level diabetes-related rates and resources/use using publicly available secondary data to identify Michigan counties with high diabetes prevalence and low or no medical and/or community resources. METHODS: We collected county-level diabetes-related rates and resources from Web-based sources and mapped them using geographic information systems (GIS) software. Data included age-adjusted county diabetes rates, diabetes-related medical resource and resource use (i.e., the number of endocrinologists and percentage of Medicare patients with diabetes who received hemoglobin A1c testing in the past year), community resources (i.e., the number of certified diabetes self-management education and diabetes support groups), as well as population estimates and demographics (e.g., rural residence, education, poverty, and race/ethnicity). We created GIS maps highlighting areas that had higher-than-median rates of disease and lower-than-median resources. We also conducted linear, logistic, and Poisson regression analyses to confirm GIS findings. RESULTS: There were clear regional trends in resource distribution across Michigan. The 15 counties in the Upper Peninsula were lacking in medical resources but higher in community resources compared with the 68 counties in the Lower Peninsula. There was little apparent association between need (diabetes prevalence) and diabetes-related resources/use. Specific counties with high diabetes prevalence and low resources were easily identified using GIS mapping. CONCLUSION: Using public data and mapping tools identified diabetes health-service shortage areas for targeted public health programming.
OBJECTIVES: To efficiently help communities prevent and manage diabetes, health departments need to be able to target populations with high risk but low resources. To aid in this process, we mapped county-level diabetes-related rates and resources/use using publicly available secondary data to identify Michigan counties with high diabetes prevalence and low or no medical and/or community resources. METHODS: We collected county-level diabetes-related rates and resources from Web-based sources and mapped them using geographic information systems (GIS) software. Data included age-adjusted county diabetes rates, diabetes-related medical resource and resource use (i.e., the number of endocrinologists and percentage of Medicare patients with diabetes who received hemoglobin A1c testing in the past year), community resources (i.e., the number of certified diabetes self-management education and diabetes support groups), as well as population estimates and demographics (e.g., rural residence, education, poverty, and race/ethnicity). We created GIS maps highlighting areas that had higher-than-median rates of disease and lower-than-median resources. We also conducted linear, logistic, and Poisson regression analyses to confirm GIS findings. RESULTS: There were clear regional trends in resource distribution across Michigan. The 15 counties in the Upper Peninsula were lacking in medical resources but higher in community resources compared with the 68 counties in the Lower Peninsula. There was little apparent association between need (diabetes prevalence) and diabetes-related resources/use. Specific counties with high diabetes prevalence and low resources were easily identified using GIS mapping. CONCLUSION: Using public data and mapping tools identified diabetes health-service shortage areas for targeted public health programming.
Authors: Jason S Shapiro; Farzad Mostashari; George Hripcsak; Nicholas Soulakis; Gilad Kuperman Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rita Rastogi Kalyani; Christopher D Saudek; Frederick L Brancati; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Martha M Funnell; Tammy L Brown; Belinda P Childs; Linda B Haas; Gwen M Hosey; Brian Jensen; Melinda Maryniuk; Mark Peyrot; John D Piette; Diane Reader; Linda M Siminerio; Katie Weinger; Michael A Weiss Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Margaret R Savoca; David A Ludwig; Stedman T Jones; K Jason Clodfelter; Joseph B Sloop; Linda Y Bollhalter; Alain G Bertoni Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Carl D Stevens; David L Schriger; Brian Raffetto; Anna C Davis; David Zingmond; Dylan H Roby Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: G H Stresman; J C Stevenson; C Owaga; E Marube; C Anyango; C Drakeley; T Bousema; J Cox Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Lauren Fiechtner; Gabriella C Puente; Mona Sharifi; Jason P Block; Sarah Price; Richard Marshall; Jeff Blossom; Monica W Gerber; Elsie M Taveras Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 2.830