Lucy Church Barker1, Paul Kurdyak1,2,3, Binu Jacob3, Simone N Vigod1,2,4. 1. 1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto , Toronto, Canada . 2. 2 Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences , Toronto, Canada . 3. 3 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health , Toronto, Canada . 4. 4 Women's College Research Institute , Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is common among individuals with chronic psychotic illness, yet they receive lower quality of diabetes care than those without psychosis. Men usually receive higher quality diabetes care than women, but whether this holds true in chronic psychotic illness populations is unknown. We aimed to determine whether quality of diabetes care differs between men and women with chronic psychotic illness. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used Ontario health administrative data to compare women and men with comorbid chronic psychotic illness and diabetes mellitus (2011-2013). The primary outcome was adherence to diabetes monitoring guidelines, defined as ≥1 retinal exam, ≥4 hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests, and ≥1 dyslipidemia test during a 2-year period. Logistic regression models compared women to men to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and confidence intervals (95% CI), adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Women with chronic psychotic illness (n = 13,972) were slightly more likely to receive guideline-adherent diabetes monitoring than men (n = 12,287) (25.2% vs. 23.0%; aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30), including a greater likelihood of receiving ≥1 retinal exam (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19) and ≥4 HbA1c tests (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12). There was no difference in receipt of ≥1 dyslipidemia test (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of diabetes monitoring is similarly poor in women and men with chronic psychotic illness, with women receiving only marginally more optimal monitoring than men. This differs from patterns in the general population, and could have implications when designing and implementing interventions to improve diabetes care in women and men with chronic psychotic illness.
BACKGROUND:Diabetes is common among individuals with chronic psychotic illness, yet they receive lower quality of diabetes care than those without psychosis. Men usually receive higher quality diabetes care than women, but whether this holds true in chronic psychotic illness populations is unknown. We aimed to determine whether quality of diabetes care differs between men and women with chronic psychotic illness. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used Ontario health administrative data to compare women and men with comorbid chronic psychotic illness and diabetes mellitus (2011-2013). The primary outcome was adherence to diabetes monitoring guidelines, defined as ≥1 retinal exam, ≥4 hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests, and ≥1 dyslipidemia test during a 2-year period. Logistic regression models compared women to men to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and confidence intervals (95% CI), adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS:Women with chronic psychotic illness (n = 13,972) were slightly more likely to receive guideline-adherent diabetes monitoring than men (n = 12,287) (25.2% vs. 23.0%; aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30), including a greater likelihood of receiving ≥1 retinal exam (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19) and ≥4 HbA1c tests (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.12). There was no difference in receipt of ≥1 dyslipidemia test (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of diabetes monitoring is similarly poor in women and men with chronic psychotic illness, with women receiving only marginally more optimal monitoring than men. This differs from patterns in the general population, and could have implications when designing and implementing interventions to improve diabetes care in women and men with chronic psychotic illness.
Entities:
Keywords:
diabetes; gender; quality of care; schizophrenia; sex
Authors: Janet E Squires; Danielle Cho-Young; Laura D Aloisio; Robert Bell; Stephen Bornstein; Susan E Brien; Simon Decary; Melissa Demery Varin; Mark Dobrow; Carole A Estabrooks; Ian D Graham; Megan Greenough; Doris Grinspun; Michael Hillmer; Tanya Horsley; Jiale Hu; Alan Katz; Christina Krause; John Lavis; Wendy Levinson; Adrian Levy; Michelina Mancuso; Steve Morgan; Letitia Nadalin-Penno; Andrew Neuner; Tamara Rader; Wilmer J Santos; Gary Teare; Joshua Tepper; Amanda Vandyk; Michael Wilson; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 16.859
Authors: Rianneke de Ritter; Marit de Jong; Rimke C Vos; Carla J H van der Kallen; Simone J S Sep; Mark Woodward; Coen D A Stehouwer; Michiel L Bots; Sanne A E Peters Journal: Biol Sex Differ Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 5.027
Authors: Moira K Kapral; Paul Kurdyak; Leanne K Casaubon; Jiming Fang; Joan Porter; Kathleen A Sheehan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 2.692