Benjamin H Han1, Caroline S Blaum1, Rosie E Ferris1, Lillian C Min2,3, Pearl G Lee2,3. 1. Division of Geriatric Medicine and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, New York University, New York, New York. 2. Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether receiving more recommended diabetes mellitus (DM) care processes (tests and screenings) would translate into better 9-year survival for middle-aged and older adults. DESIGN: Longitudinal mortality analysis using the Health and Retirement Study Diabetes Mailout Survey. SETTING: Health and Retirement Study (HRS). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 51 and older (n = 1,879; mean age 68.8 ± 8.7, 26.5% aged ≥75) with self-reported DM who completed the Diabetes Mailout Survey and the core 2002 HRS survey. MEASUREMENTS: A composite measure of five self-reported diabetes mellitus care process measures were dichotomized as greater (3-5 processes) versus fewer (0-2 processes) care processes provided. Cox proportional hazards models were used to test relationships between reported measures and mortality, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, function, comorbidities, geriatric conditions, and insulin use. RESULTS: Prevalence of self-reported care processes was 80.1% for glycosylated hemoglobin test, 75.9% for urine test, 67.5% for eye examination, 67.7% for aspirin counseling, and 48.2% for diabetes education. In 9 years, 32.1% respondents died. Greater care correlated with 24% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.91) at 9-year follow up. When respondents were age-stratified (≥75 vs <75) longer survival was statistically significant only in the older age group. CONCLUSION: Although it is not possible to account for differences in adherence to care that may also affect survival, this study demonstrates that monitoring of and counseling about types of DM care processes are associated with long-term survival benefit even in individuals aged 75 and older with DM.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether receiving more recommended diabetes mellitus (DM) care processes (tests and screenings) would translate into better 9-year survival for middle-aged and older adults. DESIGN: Longitudinal mortality analysis using the Health and Retirement Study Diabetes Mailout Survey. SETTING: Health and Retirement Study (HRS). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 51 and older (n = 1,879; mean age 68.8 ± 8.7, 26.5% aged ≥75) with self-reported DM who completed the Diabetes Mailout Survey and the core 2002 HRS survey. MEASUREMENTS: A composite measure of five self-reported diabetes mellitus care process measures were dichotomized as greater (3-5 processes) versus fewer (0-2 processes) care processes provided. Cox proportional hazards models were used to test relationships between reported measures and mortality, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, function, comorbidities, geriatric conditions, and insulin use. RESULTS: Prevalence of self-reported care processes was 80.1% for glycosylated hemoglobin test, 75.9% for urine test, 67.5% for eye examination, 67.7% for aspirin counseling, and 48.2% for diabetes education. In 9 years, 32.1% respondents died. Greater care correlated with 24% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.91) at 9-year follow up. When respondents were age-stratified (≥75 vs <75) longer survival was statistically significant only in the older age group. CONCLUSION: Although it is not possible to account for differences in adherence to care that may also affect survival, this study demonstrates that monitoring of and counseling about types of DM care processes are associated with long-term survival benefit even in individuals aged 75 and older with DM.
Authors: Caroline Blaum; Christine T Cigolle; Cynthia Boyd; Jennifer L Wolff; Zhiyi Tian; Kenneth M Langa; David R Weir Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Donna M Zulman; Jeremy B Sussman; Xisui Chen; Christine T Cigolle; Caroline S Blaum; Rodney A Hayward Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Ling Han; David S H Lee; Gail J McAvay; Peter Peduzzi; Cary P Gross; Bingqing Zhou; Haiqun Lin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Christine T Cigolle; Mohammed U Kabeto; Pearl G Lee; Caroline S Blaum Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Sheldon Greenfield; John Billimek; Fabio Pellegrini; Monica Franciosi; Giorgia De Berardis; Antonio Nicolucci; Sherrie H Kaplan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mohammed K Ali; Kai McKeever Bullard; Jinan B Saaddine; Catherine C Cowie; Giuseppina Imperatore; Edward W Gregg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maria C E Rossi; Giuseppe Lucisano; Marco Comaschi; Carlo Coscelli; Domenico Cucinotta; Patrizia Di Blasi; Giovanni Bader; Fabio Pellegrini; Umberto Valentini; Giacomo Vespasiani; Antonio Nicolucci Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 19.112