The Dynamics of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence and Management Rates among Rural Population in Henan Province, China.

The aim of this study was to estimate the dynamics of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) prevalence and management rates based on a rural cohort study in Henan Province of China. The rural prospective study was conducted for 20194 Chinese population ≥18 years in 2007-2008 and followed during 2013-2014. A total of 14009 individuals were recruited for the prospective analysis ultimately. Over 5.74 years of follow-up, the age-standardized prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM increased from 6.18%, 44.41%, 34.39%, and 19.08% at baseline to 7.87%, 59.64%, 52.17%, and 26.52% at follow-up in total population, respectively. Similar changes were found in men and women except the age-standardized control in men. The four parameters of T2DM were higher among various factors at follow-up than those at baseline. There was no statistical difference in awareness (P = 0.089) and treatment (P = 0.257) in the newly diagnosed T2DM compared with the rates at baseline. The current study indicated that the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM displayed chronological increasing trends while the awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were still disproportionally low in central China. More works are needed urgently to popularize public health education and improve the quality of medical care in T2DM.

1. Introduction

The global morbidity and mortality of diabetes are continuously increasing every year [1, 2]. Overall, 415 million adults aged 20–79 were affected by diabetes worldwide in 2015. The annual deaths of diabetes were doubled to 1.28 million in 2010 within a decade from 665.0 thousand and even climbed to 5.0 million in 2015 [1, 3]. In additional, diabetes has caused large social-economic burden [2]. In 2015, about $673 billion was spent on diabetes alone, which accounted for 12% of total health care expenditure. Diabetes has become one of the largest global health emergencies of the 21st century and leads to life threatening health problems [1-3].

With economic development, changes in lifestyle and diet, and the increase in life expectancy, China is influenced by diabetes seriously. The prevalence of diabetes had been increased from 2.6% to 9.7% in Chinese adults over the period of 2000–2010 [4], and the morbidities in elderly population were 21.4% and 24.8% in 2001 and 2010, respectively [5]. Xu et al. estimated that the prevalence of diabetes was approximately 11.6% in Chinese adults aged 18 years and above in 2010, representing a total of 113.9 million Chinese adults living with diabetes [6]. China has become one of the largest diabetes mellitus population countries around the world. Nevertheless, the awareness, treatment, and control of diabetes are unacceptably low in China [6-8]. For lack of sufficient social medical service resources and wholesome health care systems in rural areas, the diabetic patients, especially those under poorly controlled cases, were facing the risks of disable and life threat due to the complications of diabetes [9]. Previous studies have confirmed that some diabetic complications could be delayed by well controlled blood glucose close to normal level. In this way, diabetic patients could live longer and have higher quality of life. Therefore, it is necessary to take effective preventive measures for the prevention and control of diabetes-related complications and reduction of the burden of diabetes [10].

Previous studies mainly focused on prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control assessment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in general population, but the prevalence and management rates of T2DM in different regions and time varied widely. Henan Province located in the middle of China has a population of approximately 94 million in 2010. However, little is known about the longitudinal trends of T2DM in rural areas, which are relatively less developed compared with the eastern and southern regions of China [4-8]. Therefore, the present study was conducted to provide data on the dynamics of prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM based on a prospective cohort study among rural population in Henan Province. More importantly, the management rates in the newly diagnosed T2DM were exhibited.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

Xinan County is located in the northwest of Henan Province in central China, with a population of 496 thousand including 387 thousand rural population in 2006 [11]. Administratively, Xinan County is divided into one urban area and ten rural areas. The annual per capita income was approximately 3450 CNY ($445 USD) in 2006 and 9743 CNY ($1610 USD) in 2013 for rural residents in Xinan County [12]. The target population was residents aged 18 and above who have lived in rural areas of Xinan County for over 6 months. A random cluster sampling design was used to select a representative sample. In total, two townships were randomly selected from ten rural areas of Xinan County. All permanent residents signed informed consent in each sampled township and were selected as the participants. At baseline, a total of 20194 subjects completed the survey, and they were recruited for the prospective cohort study ultimately during July 2007 to August 2008. With an overall response rate of 85.5%, a total of 17265 individuals were followed up between July 2013 and October 2014, of which 2133 had missing data about whether they were diagnosed with T2DM, 13 had type 1 diabetes mellitus, and 1110 died. Finally, information about 14009 eligible participants was used to evaluate the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM in the rural cohort study. This study was approved by the Zhengzhou University Life Science Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was signed by all study participants at baseline and follow-up. All work of the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Data Collection

A standardized questionnaire and physical examination were required to be completed on each participant by special trained investigators. Information on demographic characteristics, lifestyle, personal history of disease, and family history of diabetes was collected by face to face interview. Height of participants was measured twice with shoes off using a wall-mounted tape to the nearest 0.1 cm. Body weight was measured twice with the subjects in light clothing and barefoot using mechanical scale on a level surface to the nearest 0.1 kg [13]. Fasting venous blood samples were drawn from the participants in vacuum tubes with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid dipotassium salt (EDTA-K2) after at least an 8-hour overnight fast. Plasma samples were separated from whole blood through centrifugation for 10 minutes at 3000 rpm at room temperature and then were sent to measure biochemical indicators with cold-chain transportation. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level was analyzed within 8 hours by Roche Cobas C501 automatic biochemical analyzer with glucose oxidative method (GOD-PAP).

2.3. Definitions

In accordance with the American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria [14], participants were defined as T2DM if their FPG was ≥7.0 mmol/L or if participants self-reported that they were previously diagnosed with T2DM by a physician. Awareness of T2DM was defined as the proportion of self-report of any prior diagnosis of T2DM by a physician among those with diabetes. Treatment of T2DM was considered as the proportion of taking insulin or antidiabetic medications treatment within the 2 weeks prior to the interview among those with diabetes. Control was the proportion of participants with T2DM whose FPG levels were less than 7.0 mmol/L.

Education level was classified into two categories: participants who attained up to primary school level were considered as “low education level,” while those who attained junior school or higher levels of education were defined as “high education level.” Smoking status was categorized into current smoker (a person who smoked more than one cigarette per day in the past 6 months), ever smoker (a person who ever smoked), and never smoker. Drinking was defined as a person who consumed twelve or more alcoholic drinks in the past one year, whether spirits, beer, wine, or other forms of alcohol beverage. According to Chinese dietary guidelines [15], a person taking more than 500 g vegetable and fruit daily was defined as more vegetable and fruit intake. More than 75 g meat of livestock and poultry daily consumption was considered as high fat diet. Physical activity was divided into three levels in line with the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ) [16]: low, moderate, and high. Body Mass Index (BMI) was classified into low/normal weight (BMI < 24 kg/m2), overweight (24 ≤ BMI < 28 kg/m2), and obesity (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were described as mean ± SD and analyzed through t-test. Categorical data were expressed as number and percentage and analyzed by chi-square test. Because the proportion of low weight was very small (2.71% at baseline and 2.3% at follow-up, resp.), the data of low and normal weight were merged. The age-standardized prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were estimated according to the Chinese Population Census 2010 data [17] by direct standardized methods. The statistical analyses of all data were conducted in SAS 9.3 software package (SAS Institute, USA) and a two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

3. Results

Table 1 describes the demographic characteristics of the participants at baseline and follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 5.74 years. A total of 1240 and 1820 subjects were diagnosed with T2DM at baseline and follow-up, respectively. In addition, 580 newly diagnosed T2DM patients were found during the period of follow-up. Compared with the non-T2DM subjects, the T2DM subjects had the following characteristics: older age, higher percentage of family history of diabetes, lack of physical activity, larger BMI, higher FPG, lower incidences of current smoking, alcohol drinking, and consumption of vegetable and fruit (P < 0.01 for each) at both baseline and follow-up. Marital status and high fat diet were significantly different between T2DM and non-T2DM groups at follow-up, but not at baseline.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of subjects at baseline and follow-up.

Variable	Baseline (N = 14009)			Follow-up (N = 14009)
	T2DM (N = 1240)	Control group (N = 12769)	P	T2DM (N = 1820)	Control group (N = 12189)	P
Age (years), mean ± SD	56.17 ± 9.66	50.45 ± 12.31	<0.001	61.19 ± 10.15	56.32 ± 12.28	<0.001
Men, n (%)	403 (32.50)	4818 (37.73)	<0.001	619 (34.01)	4602 (37.76)	0.002
Marital status, n (%)			0.065			<0.001
Married/cohabiting	1122 (90.48)	11741 (91.99)		1580 (86.96)	10924 (89.76)
Widowed/single/divorced/separation	118 (9.52)	1023 (8.01)		237 (13.04)	1246 (10.24)
Education level, n (%)			<0.001			<0.001
Low	765 (61.69)	6105 (47.81)		960 (52.75)	5043 (41.37)
High	475 (38.31)	6664 (52.19)		860 (47.25)	7146 (58.63)
Smoker, n (%)			<0.001			<0.001
Never	975 (78.63)	9386 (73.51)		1414 (77.69)	8867 (72.75)
Ever	83 (6.69)	732 (5.73)		170 (9.34)	1051 (8.62)
Current	182 (14.68)	2651 (20.76)		236 (12.97)	2271 (18.63)
Drinker, n (%)	97 (7.82)	1425 (11.16)	<0.001	124 (6.83)	1330 (10.93)	<0.001
More vegetable and fruit intake, n (%)	433 (34.92)	5174 (40.52)	<0.001	320 (17.58)	2435 (19.98)	0.017
High fat diet, n (%)	58 (4.68)	569 (4.46)	0.719	85 (4.67)	652 (5.35)	0.226
Physical activity, n (%)			<0.001			<0.001
Low	527 (42.50)	3589 (28.11)		1023 (56.21)	4925 (40.41)
Moderate	286 (23.06)	2876 (22.52)		263 (14.45)	2043 (16.76)
High	427 (34.44)	6304 (49.37)		534 (29.34)	5221 (42.83)
Family history of diabetes, n (%)	123 (9.92)	672 (5.26)	<0.001	208 (11.43)	814 (6.68)	<0.001
BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD	26.14 ± 3.67	24.34 ± 3.53	<0.001	26.29 ± 3.87	24.82 ± 3.69	<0.001
FPG (mmol/L)	9.14 ± 3.20	5.35 ± 0.55	<0.001	8.48 ± 3.12	5.11 ± 0.66	<0.001

Figure 1 displays the crude and age-standardized prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM at baseline and follow-up for total and different gender. In total population, the crude prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control rates of T2DM increased from 8.85%, 48.31%, 38.22%, and 19.52% at baseline to 12.99%, 65.77%, 59.56%, and 29.40% at follow-up, respectively (all P < 0.001), while the corresponding age-standardized rates were from 6.18%, 44.41%, 34.39%, and 19.08% to 7.87%, 59.64%, 52.17%, and 26.52%, respectively. The crude and age-standardized rates of prevalence, awareness, and treatment of T2DM were all higher at follow-up in both genders (showed in Figures 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), all P < 0.001). The crude and age-standardized control of T2DM showed similar increasing trend in women (P < 0.001) while the age-standardized rate decreased from 20.41% at baseline to 18.89% at follow-up in men (P = 0.023, showed in Figure 1(d)). Among the newly diagnosed T2DM, 305 people were aware of their condition, 238 taking insulin or antidiabetic medications treatment, and only 170 had their fasting plasma glucose level controlled. The crude rates of awareness, treatment, and control in the newly diagnosed T2DM were 52.59%, 41.03%, and 29.31%, respectively, while the corresponding age-standardized rates were 47.19%, 32.83%, and 27.33%, respectively. Compared with the rates at baseline, the control of T2DM showed significantly increasing trend (P < 0.001) while there was no statistical difference in awareness (P = 0.089) and treatment (P = 0.257) in the newly diagnosed T2DM (showed in Figures 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d)).

Figure 1

The crude and age-standardized prevalence (a), awareness (b), treatment (c), and control (d) of T2DM at baseline and follow-up for total, men, and women. (a) is for the prevalence of T2DM, (b) is for the awareness of T2DM, (c) is for the treatment of T2DM, and (d) is for the control of T2DM.

Table 2 presents the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM among various factors. The prevalence was higher in women compared with men at baseline and follow-up, while the awareness and treatment of T2DM were higher in women only at follow-up. The participants with positive family history of diabetes had higher prevalence, awareness, and treatment of T2DM than those without family history of diabetes. The four parameters in participants with high education level and high physical activity tended to be lower. Higher prevalence but lower awareness, treatment, and control rate were found in overweight and obese participants. Compared to the four parameters among various factors at baseline, the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were higher at follow-up. For the newly diagnosed T2DM, older, women, nonsmoker and nondrinker had higher rates of awareness, treatment, and control. Participants who took high fat diet tended to have lower rate of control than those taking low fat diet.

Table 2

Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM among various factors.

Variable	Baseline (N = 14009)				Follow-up (N = 14009)				Newly diagnosed T2DM during follow-up (N = 580)
	Prevalence (n = 1240)	Awareness (n = 599)	Treatment (n = 474)	Control (n = 242)	Prevalence (n = 1820)	Awareness (n = 1197)	Treatment (n = 1084)	Control (n = 535)	Awareness (n = 305)	Treatment (n = 238)	Control (n = 170)
Age (years), n (%)
18~	19 (1.52)	2 (10.53)	0 (0.00)	2 (10.53)	12 (2.88)	5 (41.67)	3 (25.00)	3 (25.00)	2 (40.00)	0 (0.00)	2 (40.00)
35~	131 (3.97)	39 (29.77)	26 (19.85)	17 (12.98)	83 (4.56)	33 (39.76)	28 (33.73)	9 (10.84)	14 (29.79)	11 (23.40)	4 (8.51)
45~	368 (9.59)	167 (45.38)	129 (35.05)	63 (17.12)	347 (9.46)	211 (60.81)	189 (54.47)	80 (23.05)	66 (47.83)	55 (39.86)	33 (23.91)
55~	486 (13.28)	245 (50.41)	202 (41.56)	96 (19.75)	707 (16.85)	484 (68.46)	438 (61.95)	213 (30.13)	119 (57.77)	89 (43.20)	63 (30.58)
65~	206 (12.45)	131 (63.59)	104 (50.43)	54 (26.21)	491 (17.74)	348 (70.88)	318 (64.77)	162 (32.99)	76 (58.46)	61 (46.92)	47 (36.15)
75~	30 (9.84)	15 (50.00)	13 (43.33)	10 (33.33)	180 (15.82)	116 (64.44)	108 (60.00)	68 (37.78)	28 (51.85)	22 (40.74)	21 (38.89)
P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.009	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.009	0.037	0.004
Ptrend	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.0002	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.006	0.016	<0.001
Gender, n (%)
Women	837 (9.52)	404 (48.27)	309 (36.92)	157 (18.76)	1201 (13.67)	816 (67.94)	742 (61.78)	365 (30.39)	208 (56.99)	161 (44.11)	126 (34.52)
Men	403 (7.72)	195 (48.39)	165 (40.94)	85 (21.09)	619 (11.86)	381 (61.55)	342 (55.25)	170 (27.46)	97 (45.12)	77 (35.81)	44 (20.47)
P	<0.001	0.969	0.172	0.331	0.002	0.006	0.007	0.194	0.006	0.050	<0.001
Marital status, n (%)
Married/cohabiting	1122 (8.72)	543 (48.40)	433 (38.59)	215 (19.16)	1580 (12.64)	1039 (65.76)	936 (59.24)	455 (28.80)	266 (52.47)	204 (40.24)	146 (28.80)
Widowed/single/divorced/separation	118 (10.34)	56 (47.46)	41 (34.75)	27 (22.88)	237 (15.98)	156 (65.82)	146 (61.60)	80 (33.76)	39 (54.17)	34 (47.22)	24 (33.33)
P	0.065	0.864	0.413	0.332	<0.001	0.985	0.489	0.118	0.787	0.260	0.429
Education level, n (%)
Low	765 (11.14)	390 (50.98)	303 (39.61)	157 (20.57)	960 (15.99)	661 (68.85)	605 (63.02)	303 (31.56)	150 (56.60)	113 (47.48)	88 (33.21)
High	475 (6.65)	209 (44.00)	171 (36.00)	85 (17.89)	860 (10.74)	536 (62.33)	479 (55.70)	232 (26.98)	155 (49.21)	125 (39.68)	82 (26.03)
P	<0.001	0.017	0.204	0.256	<0.001	0.003	0.001	0.032	0.076	0.471	0.059
Smoker, n (%)
Never	975 (9.41)	470 (48.21)	366 (37.54)	192 (19.69)	1414 (13.75)	950 (67.19)	862 (60.96)	432 (30.55)	247 (55.76)	192 (43.34)	144 (32.51)
Ever	83 (10.18)	46 (55.42)	39 (46.99)	14 (16.87)	170 (13.92)	110 (64.71)	103 (60.59)	48 (28.24)	19 (38.00)	16 (32.00)	10 (5.88)
Current	182 (6.42)	83 (45.60)	69 (37.91)	36 (19.78)	236 (9.41)	137 (58.05)	119 (50.42)	55 (23.31)	39 (44.83)	30 (34.48)	16 (18.39)
P	<0.001	0.330	0.234	0.802	<0.001	0.022	0.009	0.073	0.017	0.122	0.010
Drinker, n (%)	97 (6.37)	32 (32.99)	24 (24.74)	10 (10.31)	124 (8.53)	55 (44.35)	46 (37.10)	22 (17.74)	13 (24.53)	10 (18.87)	5 (9.43)
P	<0.001	0.002	0.004	0.017	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.003	<0.001	0.001	0.001
More vegetable and fruit intake, n (%)	433 (7.72)	202 (46.65)	164 (37.88)	86 (19.86)	320 (11.62)	205 (64.06)	183 (57.19)	88 (27.50)	59 (51.75)	45 (39.47)	33 (28.95)
P	<0.001	0.393	0.852	0.822	0.017	0.478	0.341	0.412	0.843	0.705	0.924
High fat diet, n (%)	58 (9.25)	23 (39.66)	19 (32.76)	11 (18.97)	85 (11.53)	49 (57.65)	45 (52.94)	18 (21.18)	14 (45.16)	12 (38.71)	4 (12.90)
P	0.719	0.177	0.380	0.904	0.226	0.103	0.203	0.088	0.395	0.787	0.039
Physical activity, n (%)
Low	527 (12.80)	296 (56.17)	240 (45.54)	119 (22.58)	1023 (17.20)	709 (69.31)	660 (64.52)	321 (31.38)	162 (55.10)	133 (45.24)	92 (31.29)
Moderate	286 (9.04)	128 (44.76)	106 (37.06)	46 (16.08)	263 (11.41)	170 (64.64)	148 (56.27)	66 (25.10)	49 (53.85)	37 (40.66)	22 (24.18)
High	427 (6.34)	175 (40.98)	128 (29.98)	77 (18.03)	534 (9.28)	318 (59.55)	276 (51.69)	148 (27.72)	94 (48.21)	68 (34.87)	56 (28.72)
P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.052	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.082	0.316	0.074	0.417
Ptrend	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.053	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.089	0.142	0.023	0.481
Family history of diabetes, n (%)	123 (15.47)	79 (64.23)	64 (52.03)	24 (19.51)	208 (20.35)	161 (77.40)	145 (69.71)	49 (23.56)	35 (63.64)	27 (49.07)	14 (25.45)
P	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	0.999	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	0.050	0.085	0.202	0.509
BMI, n (%)
Low/normal	345 (5.22)	182 (52.75)	147 (42.61)	77 (22.32)	502 (8.63)	336 (66.93)	298 (59.36)	151 (30.08)	81 (54.00)	61 (40.67)	56 (37.33)
Overweight	537 (10.43)	270 (50.28)	218 (40.60)	99 (18.44)	743 (13.84)	485 (65.28)	443 (59.62)	226 (30.42)	116 (50.43)	91 (39.57)	61 (26.52)
Obese	358 (15.90)	147 (42.06)	109 (30.45)	66 (18.44)	513 (18.87)	319 (62.18)	290 (56.53)	153 (29.82)	90 (50.28)	71 (39.66)	51 (28.49)
P	<0.001	0.004	0.001	0.303	<0.001	0.271	0.510	0.974	0.748	0.975	0.069
Ptrend	<0.001	0.002	0.001	0.186	<0.001	0.113	0.357	0.928	0.527	0.839	0.099

Figure 2 shows changes in the age-adjusted prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM with aging at baseline and follow-up for different genders. Trend chi-square test showed that the prevalence, awareness, and treatment of T2DM were positively correlated with age for both genders at baseline and follow-up (all P < 0.01 for trend), without gender difference. There was no significant improvement in men (P = 0.195) and women (P = 0.060) among all age subgroups in control of T2DM at baseline while the rate showed increasing trend in both genders at follow-up. The prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were higher in both genders among all age subgroups at follow-up than the four parameters at baseline in general, and the gap became obvious with the increase of age. For the newly diagnosed T2DM, the control rate was positively correlated with age in both genders (Ptrend = 0.006 for men, Ptrend = 0.012 for women) while the awareness rate only increased with age in men (Ptrend = 0.043). The control of T2DM was slightly higher while there was no obvious difference in awareness and treatment in both genders among all age subgroups in the newly diagnosed T2DM compared with the management rates at baseline.

Figure 2

Trends of the age-standardized prevalence (a), awareness (b), treatment (c), and control (d) of T2DM with aging at baseline and follow-up for different genders. The trend of the age-standardized prevalence of T2DM is showed in (a), the change in the age-standardized awareness of T2DM is presented in (b), the tendency of the age-standardized treatment of T2DM is displayed in (c), and the trend of the age-standardized control of T2DM is described in the (d).

4. Discussion

The current study is based on a large-scale, prospective cohort design to report temporal dynamics in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM among rural residents in Henan Province, China. The major findings of this study included the following: (1) the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control rates of T2DM showed chronological increasing trends in rural areas; (2) the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were higher among various factors at follow-up than those at baseline, and the gap became obvious with the increase of age in both genders; (3) the prevalence, awareness, and treatment of T2DM tended to rise with age in both genders at baseline and follow-up, while the ascending trend of control rate for both genders was only seen at follow-up; (4) the control of T2DM was slightly higher while there was no obvious difference in awareness and treatment in the newly diagnosed T2DM compared with the management rates at baseline; (5) the awareness, treatment, and control rates were disproportionately low and were still far from satisfactory.

As an important province in agricultural production and population, Henan Province was an originally region of a low-incidence of diabetes [18, 19]. However, with the social-economic development, lifestyle change, and population aging, the prevalence of diabetes in rural areas of Henan Province has increased and will continue to increase dramatically. Our study indicated that the prevalence of T2DM tended to increase with time in the rural areas of Henan Province. However, the age-standardized rates of prevalence were lower at baseline (6.18%) and follow-up (7.87%) in the cohort study than the weighted prevalence of diabetes in countryside of China in 2007-2008 (8.2%) [20] and 2010 (10.3%) [6]. The differences in the prevalence of T2DM might partially be attributed to the varied diagnostic methods. Our study only took account of FPG and history of diabetes while Yang et al. [20] and Xu et al. [6] conducted 2-hour plasma glucose tests and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) additionally.

The rates of awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were unsatisfactory compared with the corresponding rates in the coastal regions of China and some developed countries [6, 21, 22]. What is more, there were no statistical differences in awareness and treatment in the newly diagnosed T2DM compared with the rates at baseline. For lack of access to health care service and knowledge in rural areas of Henan Province, it was still very common that FPG checkup could not be routinely performed. In addition, community-based FPG screening and health education were not yet popularized in rural areas of Henan Province. These might partially explain the substantially lower awareness of T2DM in Chinese rural areas. The poor awareness of T2DM in public might contribute to its low treatment of the disease in rural areas. Only less than thirty percent of the participants with T2DM in rural districts achieved effective FPG control, which was consistent with the recent survey carried out in Jilin Province [23].

There were obvious awareness, treatment, and control rates of T2DM among young and middle-age population at follow-up. There might be some potential reasons for the phenomenon, such as the design of the study and age structure. The management rates were based on a fixed cohort study and the target population was residents aged 18 and above at baseline. Over 5.74 years of follow-up, the decreasing number of participants at 18~35 years might lead to the bias of awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM. In addition, the mean age of participants was 50.96 ± 12.21 years at baseline including less young subjects. The population of 18~35 years age group accounted for 8.94% (1252/14009) of the total participants at baseline while the rate was obviously lower than the corresponding rate (34.90%) in the Chinese Population Census 2010 data. Although the age-standardized awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were estimated according to the Chinese Population Census 2010 data, the efficiency remained limited. Besides, most of T2DM are newly diagnosed among young population which might also be an important reason. The above reasons might have partly contributed to the higher awareness, treatment, and control rates among young and middle-age population at follow-up. Nonetheless, the obvious awareness and control among young and middle-age population might imply the importance of prevention and treatment in young population for its cost-effectiveness to some extent.

Although the results were based on a prospective cohort design study exploring the changes of the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM in Chinese rural population, there were still some limitations. Firstly, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was not examined for the definition of T2DM due to the limitation of field conditions, which might result in misestimating the prevalence of T2DM. Nonetheless, the application of same criterion at baseline and follow-up made it have little effect on the changes of prevalence and management rates. What is more, FPG was recommended for the diagnosis of T2DM in epidemiological field studies on account of its convenience, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability among all subjects [24]. Secondly, the management rates were based on a cohort study, and the participants were informed of the results of biochemical indicators during baseline survey, which might lead to overestimating the awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM in the rural areas at follow-up. Thirdly, the subjects of the present study had asymmetrical age structure which might lead to misestimating the awareness, treatment, and control rates. Thus, the participants of the cohort study need to be improved and perfected in the future study. Finally, only one-time follow-up was conducted in the cohort study, and more follow-ups and further studies were needed to explore the dynamics of T2DM prevalence and management rates in rural areas of Henan Province. Despite these limitations, the study was based on a large population-based prospective cohort design in rural districts, and the results can partially represent the burden of T2DM in rural population of Henan Province.

In summary, the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM displayed increasing tendencies over time in the rural longitudinal cohort study. The prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of T2DM were higher among various factors at follow-up than those at baseline, but the awareness, treatment, and control rates remained disproportionately low in the rural areas in central China. The present results suggested that improving medical quality of T2DM and healthy lifestyle intervention measures were urgently required to reduce the burden of T2DM.