BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding diabetes technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in urban racially/ethnically diverse safety-net hospitals. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the use of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in this setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of 227 patients ≥ 18 years of age with T1D seen in an urban, safety-net endocrinology clinic during 2016-2017 was completed (mean age: 39; 80% English-speaking; 50% had public insurance). Diabetes technology use, defined as either CGM or CSII or both CGM and CSII, and clinical outcomes were examined by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, 30% used CGM and 26% used CSII. After adjusting for age, language, insurance, and annual income, diabetes technology use in non-White patients was significantly lower than in White patients, predominantly lower in Black (aOR 0.25 [95% CI 0.11-0.56]) and patients identified as other race/ethnicity (aOR 0.30 [95% CI 0.11-0.77]). At the highest household income level (≥$75,000/y), Black and Hispanic individuals were significantly less likely than White individuals to use diabetes technology (P < .0007). Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was lower in patients using any diabetes technology compared with patients using no technology (P < .0001). Use of CGM and CSII together was associated with the lowest HbA1c across all racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use and glycemic control were observed even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Further research should explore barriers to accessing diabetes technology in non-White populations.
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding diabetes technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in urban racially/ethnically diverse safety-net hospitals. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the use of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in this setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of 227 patients ≥ 18 years of age with T1D seen in an urban, safety-net endocrinology clinic during 2016-2017 was completed (mean age: 39; 80% English-speaking; 50% had public insurance). Diabetes technology use, defined as either CGM or CSII or both CGM and CSII, and clinical outcomes were examined by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Overall, 30% used CGM and 26% used CSII. After adjusting for age, language, insurance, and annual income, diabetes technology use in non-White patients was significantly lower than in White patients, predominantly lower in Black (aOR 0.25 [95% CI 0.11-0.56]) and patients identified as other race/ethnicity (aOR 0.30 [95% CI 0.11-0.77]). At the highest household income level (≥$75,000/y), Black and Hispanic individuals were significantly less likely than White individuals to use diabetes technology (P < .0007). Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was lower in patients using any diabetes technology compared with patients using no technology (P < .0001). Use of CGM and CSII together was associated with the lowest HbA1c across all racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use and glycemic control were observed even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Further research should explore barriers to accessing diabetes technology in non-White populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
diabetes technology; health care disparities; safety-net hospital; type 1 diabetes mellitus
Authors: Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jessica M Valenzuela; Michael Seid; Beth Waitzfelder; Andrea M Anderson; Daniel P Beavers; Dana M Dabelea; Lawrence M Dolan; Giuseppina Imperatore; Santica Marcovina; Kristi Reynolds; Joyce Yi-Frazier; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: George Grunberger; Yehuda Handelsman; Zachary T Bloomgarden; Vivian A Fonseca; Alan J Garber; Richard A Haas; Victor L Roberts; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Maria H Lin; Crystal G Connor; Katrina J Ruedy; Roy W Beck; Craig Kollman; Bruce Buckingham; Maria J Redondo; Desmond Schatz; Heidi Haro; Joyce M Lee; William V Tamborlane; Jamie R Wood Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Scott M Blackman; Dan Raghinaru; Saleh Adi; Jill H Simmons; Laurie Ebner-Lyon; H Peter Chase; William V Tamborlane; Desmond A Schatz; Jennifer M Block; Jean C Litton; Vandana Raman; Nicole C Foster; Craig R Kollman; Stephanie N DuBose; Kellee M Miller; Roy W Beck; Linda A DiMeglio Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Laurel H Messer; Christine A Wu; Marina Basina; Bruce A Buckingham; Danielle Hessler; Shelagh A Mulvaney; David M Maahs; Korey K Hood Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 8.180