Inequalities in care for the people with diabetes in Brazil: A nationwide study, 2019.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate inequalities in care for people with diabetes in Brazil. This cross-sectional population-based study was carried out in 2019 and evaluated care provided by receiving advice, requesting laboratory tests, and performing examinations. We used the slope index of inequality and concentration index to assess inequalities according to educational level and Poisson regression to estimate prevalence ratios for each outcome in the education category. We assessed a total of 6317 people with diabetes, 41.8% had their eyes checked, and 36.1% had their feet examined in the previous year. Prevalence for both examinations was 2.45 times higher in those from the highest level of education compared to those from the lowest level. The largest absolute differences (in percentage points) between the lowest and highest education levels in care indicators were the following: request for glycated hemoglobin test (39.0), glucose curve test (31.4), and eyes checked in the previous year (29.7). There were notable inequalities in the prevalence ratios of care provided to people with diabetes in Brazil. Requests for glycated hemoglobin tests, glucose curve tests, eye and feet examinations should be emphasized, especially for people from lower educational levels.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the population, ranking 5th in assessing disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide in 2019 [1]. The global prevalence of diabetes was approximately 9% [2]. It rose from 6% in 2013 to 8% in Brazil in 2019, reaching 13% among people from low socioeconomic levels [3]. Various complications are linked to diabetes, such as kidney disease, amputations, blindness, increased risk of other cardiovascular diseases and stroke, leading to adverse health outcomes, especially hospitalizations, disability, and deaths [4, 5].

Controlling DM, as a Chronic Non-Communicable Disease (NCD), depends both on self-care and the health system, with emphasis on primary care for case management and monitoring to prevent complications [6]. Such control should be reinforced among the most vulnerable population, which is predominant in Brazil, where poverty levels have been increasing in recent years [7].

DM disproportionately affects the lowest socioeconomic groups, reinforcing the direct relationship between health and economic conditions [8, 9]. Although Brazil has a universal, comprehensive and equitable Unified Health System with Primary Health Care responsible for the management of DM, the quality of care received, especially by people with lower socioeconomic status, is affected by infrastructure, lack of access to services, health professional work process, and the population’s socio-demographic characteristics, contributing to poorer health outcomes [6, 10–13]. On the other hand, people with higher socioeconomic status, in the country, tend to use the private health system, being able to obtain greater access and quality in every line of care for the people with DM [4, 8, 9, 12].

Regarding the quality of care offered to people with diabetes, most studies in Brazil have evaluated access and structure, while a gap remains considering the work process quality evaluation [10, 11]. Similarly to this study, Neves et al. [13] assessed social inequities in the care of older people with diabetes based on data from the 2013 National Health Survey (PNS), and identified worse care for the poorest. This result was found mainly for advice on measuring blood glucose, requests for glycated hemoglobin tests, requests for glucose curve tests and examination of the eyes and feet, resulting in low performance of all evaluated care services (one in ten older people).

The objective of this article is to evaluate inequalities in care for people with diabetes in Brazil. The absence of studies between 2013 and 2019 on this topic, and the opportunity to monitor the situation of the care received in the health system in the period of six years may bridge an existing gap in the literature, and increase policy efforts on the health of people with DM.

Methods

This cross-sectional population-based study uses data from the National Health Survey (PNS), open access, carried out in Brazil in 2019 by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in partnership with the Ministry of Health. The sample was representative of permanent residents living in urban or rural areas of municipalities in Brazil’s five geographic regions, distributed over 26 Federative Units and Federal District.

The sampling process was done in three stages. First, census tracts were selected, then households, and finally, individuals aged 18 or older. The sample was made up of 108,457 households, where 90,846 individuals answered the questionnaire on chronic diseases.

Trained interviewers collected data using handheld computers (personal digital assistant [PDA]) for data storage. The questionnaire consisted of three parts: a) household variables, b) general characteristics of all residents in the household, and c) work and health related questions asked to one randomly selected resident. The present study sample consisted of adults aged 18 years or older who reported a medical diagnosis of DM and who had seen a doctor due to diabetes in the previous three years. More details about the sampling process and instruments are available in the PNS document [3].

In order to evaluate the care offered to people with DM, three synthetic outcomes were created using the collected information: 1) Receiving all types of advice, based on questions about having a healthy diet, maintaining adequate weight, practicing regular physical activity, not smoking, not drinking in excess, reducing consumption of pasta and bread, avoiding consumption of sugar, sugary and sweet drinks, measuring blood glucose at home, examining feet regularly and having regular monitoring with a health professional, based on the following question: "In any of your diabetes consultations, did any doctor or other health professional give you any of these recommendations?"; 2) Requesting all tests, including blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, glucose curve, urine analysis, and cholesterol or triglycerides, using the following question: " Were any of these tests requested in your diabetes consultations?" and 3) Eye and feet examinations in the previous year, by a health professional, based on the following questions: "When was the last time you had your eyes checked in which your pupil was dilated?” and "When was the last time a doctor or health care professional examined your feet for sensitivity or the presence of sores or irritation?"

The independent variable was education divided into five categories (no education; incomplete elementary school; complete elementary school / incomplete high school; complete high school / incomplete higher education and complete higher education) and the variables used for adjustment were region (North; Northeast; Midwest; Southeast; South), sex (male; female), age in complete years (18 to 49; 50 to 64; 65 and over) and self-reported skin color (white; black; brown/yellow/indigenous).

We calculated prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each of the care indicators and performed an adjusted analysis using Poisson regression to estimate the prevalence ratios and the respective confidence intervals according to education categories.

We estimated the magnitude of the inequalities for each indicator regarding the education variable using two indices: the slope index of inequality (SII) and the concentration index (CIX). The SII expresses absolute difference, in percentage points, between the prevalence of extreme education categories, using a logistic regression model. The CIX is based on a scale ranging from -100 to +100, with zero representing equal distribution across schooling categories, while positive values indicate that the distribution favors the most educated. The SII presents absolute inequality, while the CIX indicates relative inequality. We calculated 95% CIs for the SII and CIX. Several authors currently use these indices to measure health inequalities [14-16]. More details of the analyses can be found in Silva et al. [17]. We performed all analyses using STATA® 15.0 statistical package, using the “svy” command. That command takes into account the survey design, including sampling weights of the individual and clustering.

The National Research Ethics Committee of the National Health Council approved the National Health Survey project in August 2019 under protocol number 3.529.376. All participants signed a free and informed consent form, and ethical principles were safeguarded.

Results

Of the 90,846 respondents, 7,358 individuals reported a previous medical diagnosis of DM (8.1%). From these, 6,317 (85.9%) had received medical care in the previous three years, making up the sample of the present study. Approximately half of the sample was located in the Southeast (49.4%), 57.0% were female, 41.7% were 65 or over, 45.2% reported white skin color, and most had incomplete primary education (46.2%) (Table 1).

Table 1

Description of the sample according to regional and sociodemographic characteristics in the people with diabetes mellitus, Brazil, 2019 (N = 6317).

Variable	N (%)*
Region
North	929 (5.3)
Northeast	2.139 (23.9)
Midwest	738 (6.6)
Southeast	1.681 (49.4)
South	830 (14.8)
Sex
Male	2.512 (43.0)
Female	3.805 (57.0)
Age (years)
18–49	978 (17.3)
50–64	2.527 (41.0)
65 and over	2.812 (41.7)
Skin color
White	2.415 (45.2)
Black	787 (11.6)
Brown/yellow/indigenous	3.115 (43.2)
Educational level
No education	1.000 (12.5)
Elementary education incomplete	2.803 (46.2)
Elementary education completed/high education incomplete	701 (11.3)
High education completed/higher education incomplete	1.205 (20.6)
Higher education completed	608 (9.4)

*These are the absolute number and the weighted sample proportion

Fig 1 shows the prevalence for each of the studied indicators. The most prevalent types of advice were to keep a healthy diet (95.0%), avoid sugar consumption (92.9%), and maintain adequate weight (92.1%). On the other hand, advice on measuring blood glucose (65.9%) and examining the feet (53.3%) was the least prevalent. Receiving all types of advice was reported by 32.9% of respondents. Blood glucose and triglycerides were the most frequently required laboratory test, 93.3% and 86.8% respectively, and the glucose curve was the least requested (54.1%). All tests were found to be requested for 45.0% of the sample. Less than half had their eyes (41.8%) and feet examined (36.1%) in the previous year, and 21.0% underwent both examinations.

Fig 1

Prevalence (%) of the care services offered to the people with diabetes mellitus, Brazil, 2019, (N = 6317).

Concerning the analysis of inequalities for most indicators, the highest proportions were found in the highest schooling categories (complete high school/ incomplete higher education and complete higher education). Advice on alcohol consumption, glycated hemoglobin, glucose curve, triglycerides test requests, and eye examination in the previous year and performance of all tests showed higher prevalence as the level of education increased (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Prevalence (%) of the care services offered to the people with diabetes mellitus, according to educational level, Brazil, 2019, (N = 6317).

Table 2 describes the reasons for outcome prevalence according to the exposure variable. Advice on practicing physical activity and advice not drinking too much was about 20% more prevalent in individuals with higher education level than those who had no education. Receiving all types of advice was approximately 35% more prevalent among those who had complete high school education or above. Requesting glycated hemoglobin tests, glucose curve tests, and all tests showed a positive association since there was an increase in this prevalence as education level increased. Having had an eye examination in the previous year was 1.74 times higher among those with complete higher education compared to those with no education, and feet examination was 1.45 times higher. Prevalence for both examinations was 2.45 times higher in those with a higher level of education compared to those from a lower level.

Table 2

Adjusted analysis of the care services offered to the people with diabetes mellitus, according to educational level, Brazil, 2019 (N = 6317).

Variable	Educational level [Prevalence Ratio (95% CI)]
	No education	Elementary education incomplete	Elementary education completed/high education incomplete	High education completed/higher education incomplete	Higher education completed
Having a healthy diet	1.00	1.01 (0.98.1.04)	1.01 (0.98.1.05)	1.02 (0.98.1.05)	1.00 (0.96.1.04)
Maintaining adequate weight	1.00	1.04 (1.00.1.08)	1.06 (1.02.1.11)	1.04 (1.00.1.09)	1.03 (0.98.1.08)
Practicing physical activity	1.00	1.14 (1.06.1.22)	1.19 (1.10.1.29)	1.21 (1.12.1.31)	1.20 (1.11.1.30)
Not smoking	1.00	1.06 (0.96.1.17)	1.08 (0.97.1.21)	1.15 (1.03.1.27)	1.12 (0.99.1.26)
Not drinking in excess	1.00	1.10 (1.00.1.22)	1.13 (1.01.1.27)	1.18 (1.06.1.31)	1.19 (1.06.1.34)
Reducing consumption of pasta and bread	1.00	0.99 (0.95.1.04)	1.01 (0.96.1.07)	1.02 (0.97.1.08)	1.00 (0.94.1.06)
Avoiding sugar and sweets	1.00	0.99 (0.96.1.02)	1.00 (0.96.1.04)	1.00 (0.96.1.04)	1.00 (0.96.1.04)
Measuring blood glucose at home	1.00	1.07 (0.96.1.19)	1.05 (0.93.1.19)	1.18 (1.05.1.32)	1.11 (0.98.1.27)
Examining feet regularly	1.00	0.93 (0.82.1.05)	1.06 (0.90.1.25)	1.11 (0.97.1.28)	1.14 (0.98.1.32)
Having regular follow-up	1.00	1.04 (0.97.1.12)	1.01 (0.91.1.12)	1.13 (1.05.1.22)	1.14 (1.04.1.24)
All types of advice	1.00	1.02 (0.83.1.24)	1.27 (1.00.1.61)	1.37 (1.10.1.71)	1.34 (1.05.1.71)
Blood glucose	1.00	1.04 (1.00.1.08)	1.05 (1.01.1.10)	1.08 (1.04.1.12)	1.07 (1.01.1.12)
Glycated hemoglobin	1.00	1.15 (1.03.1.29)	1.36 (1.20.1.53)	1.44 (1.28.1.62)	1.49 (1.32.1.68)
Glucose curve	1.00	1.12 (0.97.1.30)	1.29 (1.09.1.53)	1.42 (1.21.1.66)	1.44 (1.20.1.71)
Urine analysis	1.00	1.05 (0.98.1.12)	1.10 (1.02.1.19)	1.05 (0.97.1.14)	1.10 (1.01.1.20)
Cholesterol or triglycerides	1.00	1.06 (1.00–1.12)	1.10 (1.03.1.17)	1.11 (1.05.1.18)	1.12 (1.04.1.20)
All requested tests	1.00	1.14	1.34	1.37	1.48
		(0.96–1.37)	(1.10–1.64)	(1.13–1.67)	(1.20–1.83)
Eyes examined in the preceding year	1.00	1.12	1.39	1.44	1.74
		(0.94–1.34)	(1.11–1.75)	(1.19–1.75)	(1.43–2.13)
Feet examined in the preceding year	1.00	0.94	1.20	1.23	1.45
		(0.78–1.14)	(0.95–1.52)	(0.99–1.52)	(1.17–1.80)
All exams performed	1.00	1.14	1.66	1.75	2.45
		(0.84–1.56)	(1.15–2.40)	(1.26–2.43)	(1.74–3.44)

CI: Confidence Interval

Among the evaluated indicators, four showed the greatest absolute differences represented by the SII: request for glycated hemoglobin tests (39.0p.p.), glucose curve tests (31.4p.p.), eyes examined in the previous year (29.7p.p.) and all requested tests (29.0p.p.). The relative inequalities (CIX) were greater for the indicators requesting all laboratory tests, eyes examined in the last year and performance of all examinations (Table 3).

Table 3

Slope index of inequality and concentration index, with 95% confidence intervals, of the care services offered to the people with diabetes mellitus, according to educational level, Brazil, 2019 (N = 6317).

Variable	Slope Index of Inequality	95% CI*	Concentration Index	95% CI*
Having a healthy diet	3.9	1.8–6.0	0.5	0.2–0.8
Maintaining adequate weight	7.7	5.1–10.4	1.3	0.9–1.7
Practicing physical activity	19.8	16.5–23.1	3.4	2.8–4
Not smoking	10.5	6.5–14.5	2	1.1–2.9
Not drinking in excess	15.4	11.4–19.4	3.4	2.5–4.3
Reducing consumption of pasta and bread	5.1	2.2–7.9	0.8	0.3–1.3
Avoiding sugar and sweets	3.2	0.9–5.6	0.5	1.1–3.2
Measuring blood glucose at home	10.0	5.8–14.2	2.1	1.1–3.2
Examining feet regularly	14.4	10.0–18.8	4.3	3.0–5.7
Having regular follow-up	14.0	10.2–17.8	2.8	2.0–3.6
All types of advice	14.0	10.0–18.4	6.1	4.1–8.1
Blood glucose	10.5	7.9–13.2	1.6	1.2–2.0
Glycated hemoglobin	39.0	35.2–42.9	9.0	8.0–10
Glucose curve	31.4	27.2–35.5	9.0	7.7–10.4
Urine analysis	12.1	8.5–15.8	2.1	1.4–2.9
Cholesterol or triglycerides	16.7	13.3–20.0	3.0	2.4–3.6
All requested tests	29.0	24.8–33.2	9.6	8.0–11.2
Eyes examined in the preceding year	29.7	25.6–33.9	11.7	9.9–13.4
Feet examined in the preceding year	15.3	11.0–19.5	6.4	4.5–8.4
All exams performed	19.5	15.8–23.1	14.6	11.8–17.4

*CI: Confidence Interval

Discussion

We identified inequalities in care for individuals with DM. Those from higher schooling levels were more likely to receive complete advice on the management of DM, have all tests requested by health professionals, and perform all exams. We found that the probability of having all exams was two times greater among people with higher education than those with no education. The greater the quality of care, the greater the difference between education categories, with emphasis on the most educated. This finding corroborates with Neves et al. [1] indicating the persistence of inequities in the quality of care for patients with DM after six years, and reinforcing the existence of gaps in the qualification of clinical care and access to tests and exams, especially in Primary Care among individuals aged 60 years or older, when evaluating similar indicators from the 2013 PNS. In addition, our findings corroborate with results found in the literature for Latin American countries where inequalities in health interventions are evident [18].

The quality of care provided to patients with DM can influence the evolution of other diseases related to it [5, 6]. About a third of the sample reported having received all types of advice evaluated, consisting of cost-free actions to be carried out in all contacts between health professionals and their patients, providing information and education [19, 20]. The importance of receiving advice from health professionals should be emphasized so these habits are effectively put into practice [21].

The use of educational level as an exposure variable in the present study can strengthen our findings, considering that some types of advice are possibly widely known and not necessarily provided by health professionals who monitor patients [22]. However, it should be emphasized that low education levels can impair patients’ understanding of the disease and its treatment, and undermine the importance of self-care [23].

Advice on measuring blood glucose and advice on examining feet were the least prevalent. Several studies have shown the same problem regarding the quality of care received in Primary Health Care (PHC). A study with 8,118 PHC users linked to family health teams and a medical diagnosis of DM found that only 49% received guidance on foot care [10] and Santos et al. [24] found a 35% prevalence of receiving this type of guidance. Gonçalves et al. [25], in Porto Alegre/RS, evaluated the prevalence of different types of advice among users of services with high and low general PHC scores of quality of care, according to the PCATool, and found a difference around two times higher for advice on feet examination and 1.3 times higher for advice on healthy eating in high-score services.

The report on a foot care task force conducted by the American Diabetes Association stressed the importance of health service users with DM having their feet assessed at least once a year and recognizing signs of possible complications to reduce lower limb amputations [26]. Batista et al. [27] showed that low education levels hinder appropriate feet care, mainly due to reduced understanding of the disease and guidance given. For this reason, this type of advice should be clearly and objectively given.

Less than a half of studied population had performed all recommended tests during the 12 month period. The glucose curve was the least requested test, and the glycated hemoglobin test was requested for less than 70% of the sample. Laboratory tests are essential for monitoring these measurements to achieve qualified clinical management and control of the disease. Studies [28, 29] have shown that maintaining glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels below 7% can decrease vascular complications of diabetes and that the higher the levels of glycated hemoglobin, the greater the severity of diabetic neuropathy.

The prevalence of examining the feet and eyes in the previous year can be considered low. Corroborating with our findings, Tomasi et al. [10] found 46% occurrence of the fundus examination performed periodically, and only 33% of feet checked among primary care users. Similarly, a study carried out with patients hospitalized with diabetic foot found a 44% prevalence of having their feet examined during routine consultations in the previous year [24]. When comparing other Latin American countries, Gagliardino et al. observed that a little more than one-third and around eight in ten participants had their eyes and feet checked, respectively [30].

In addition, we found that only 21% of the respondents had had both of these exams, with the aggravating factor that the highest occurrence was among the most educated. These tests can and should be performed during routine appointments, as recommended by national and international guidelines for disease control [2, 6, 31], and are important indicators of quality of care for individuals with DM and preventing the onset of disabilities and irreversible blindness [32].

Another point to be considered is that according to the literature, the less educated tend to consult more in primary health care services. These services have historically had worse infrastructure [11, 12]. Neves et al. [11] found that, from the primary care teams in Brazil, only 31% had a monofilament kit. Only 23% had an ophthalmoscope available at their primary care centers, and less than 8% of the teams had an adequate minimum structure of materials to care for people with DM.

Recall bias stands out as a limitation of this study. This bias was identified by the absence of specific temporality for questions related to guidance received. In this period, individuals may have had more opportunities to receive any type of evaluated advice or even be confused with some other moment in life when they received such recommendations, so that the estimates found may have been overestimated. We believe that temporality, such as 12 months prior to the interview for eye and foot examinations, could have minimized this limitation.

It is noteworthy that, in view of the possibility of using schooling as a proxy for socioeconomic level, a correlation test was carried out between schooling and wealth index. This test revealed a high relationship (0.8) between the variables, which contributed to the use of schooling in the analysis of inequalities in care for individuals with DM.

Absolute inequality and relative inequality (expressed by SII and CIX, respectively) were consistent regarding the differences found for the following indicators: eye exam in the previous year and having all requested tests. In the present study, these absolute and relative measures showed that they could be classified as complementary for the indicators mentioned [33]. Generally, measures of absolute inequality are more easily interpreted, as they show, for example, how much coverage of conducting an examination for DM control should increase to achieve equality, making this measure especially useful for health managers to assist in decision making [14].

In Brazil, from 2011 to 2018, primary care qualification policies expanded access to services, improved infrastructure, and ensured improvements in health teamwork processes [11, 34]. However, as this study has shown, and has also been reported by other authors, there is still a need to expand the qualification of clinical practice and access to specific exams [10, 34, 35]. It should be noted that the discontinuity of programs to promote qualification of primary care in Brazil, the reduction of public resources for health and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health system and the economy, may have worsened the indicators of care for patients with DM, reduced the quality and comprehensiveness of the care offered in the coming years, increasing even further inequality in care among the population.

Conclusion

We found that the probability of receiving quality care, based on the evaluated indicators, was higher among more educated individuals. In order to reduce social inequalities, it is important that, health services, especially PHC, are organized and the work processes are geared to health needs of the population to which they are targeted at. As a result, health services will be able to progress in the care provided to the poorest, promoting greater equity in health.

13 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-11633

Inequalities in care for the people with diabetes in Brazil: a nationwide study, 2019

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Neves,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As the Academic Editor, I have sent your manuscript for revision to several persons. Currently one expert in the field has already provided the peer-review with very useful comments, suggesting Major Revision. Other experts invited so far have declined the invitation to review the manuscript (it is rather widespread situation, related to different factors).

I would like to save your time, and provide the possibility to perform the revision of the manuscript based on the feedback from one expert in the field, and make it stronger. Once you submit the revised manuscript, I will send it to the expert who provided the feedback, and also involve another reviewer. If you have any objections for this approach, please let me know. If you agree, please proceed this way and submit the revised manuscript along with the point-by-point responses to the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Boris Bikbov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper on how social inequalities are translated into health outcomes. My main concerns are: 1. English language must be revised. 2. Methodology needs to be improved with a better explanation on the estimation of both indices: the slope index of inequality (SII) and the concentration index (CIX) and why they are appropriate for this specific study. 3. Discussion needs to discuss Brazil results in the context of regional inequalities in Latin America. 5. The quality and format of figures needs to be improved.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Carolina Santamaría-Ulloa

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

31 Aug 2021

August 20th, 2021

To the Journal Plos One

Subject: answer to editors and reviewers

Dear PLOS ONE Editor

We thank you for your careful review of the manuscript entitled “Inequalities in care for the people with diabetes in Brazil: a nationwide study, 2019”. We would like to point out that all requests have been met. Below are the details of each one and their respective answer.

1) English language must be revised.

Answer: the English language has been revised throughout the manuscript.

2) Methodology needs to be improved with a better explanation on the estimation of both indices: the slope index of inequality (SII) and the concentration index (CIX) and why they are appropriate for this specific study.

Answer: in the penultimate paragraph of the methodology, the requests, the references that use the indexes in the data analysis and the methodological article that explains in detail how to calculate each one of them have been included.

3) Discussion needs to discuss Brazil results in the context of regional inequalities in Latin America.

Answer: after searching the literature, few studies carried out in Latin America dealing with a similar theme were found, however some comparisons have been made with the references we did find. They have been included in paragraphs one and seven of the discussion.

4) The quality and format of figures needs to be improved.

Answer: Figure 2 has been saved in WMF (created in STATA 15.1) format as requested by the journal and Figure 1 in JPG (created in excel).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.odt

Click here for additional data file.

9 Dec 2021

28 Feb 2022

Dear reviewers and editor

We greatly appreciate your comments to improve the manuscript. Below is information about your considerations.

- This manuscript has undergone two English revisions. It would be very helpful for us to point out which points need to be reviewed, as we were unable to identify them.

- The article referred to with data from 2013 was only with a sample of elderly people, aged 60 years or older, unlike the one that used a sample of adults over 18 years of age. In addition, this article presents analyzes that were not performed with the 2013 data, such as the analysis adjusted through Poisson regression, in which we can identify the magnitude of the effect measure in the different education categories.

- And regarding the stratification by age, region, state, we chose not to explore it in this article, since, as it is an incipient topic in the literature, we chose to carry out a national analysis, but we intend to explore the data in future studies.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Mar 2022

Submitted filename: PlosOne11633.docx

Click here for additional data file.

13 May 2022

May 02th, 2022

To the Journal Plos One

Subject: answer to editors and reviewers

Dear PLOS ONE Editor

We thank you for your careful review of the manuscript entitled “Inequalities in care for the people with diabetes in Brazil: a nationwide study, 2019”. We would like to point out that all requests have been met. Below are the details of each one and their respective answer.

• Please take attention to the very useful comments of the Reviewer bout the need to provide more details about the health care system in Brazil.

Answer: done.

• One of the major focus of the analysis is SII and CIX evaluation, and they are described in Methods and Results. The Discussion the inequalities described mainly without mentioning these indexes, and even lines 278-285 that refer to these indexes discussed more in general than in details. When you describe in the Discussion "Absolute inequality and relative inequality", please add "(expressed by SII and CIX, resp.)". It would be better if you put in the "Discussion" some highlights and explanations, along with the public health recommendations, based on your analysis of these indexes. For example, in the responses to reviewers you explained why these indexes had prominent difference between urianalysis and eye examination, and this could be highlighted also in the "Discussion" in a more explicit way.

Answer: thanks for the comment. The greatest inequalities according to the indexes were found in the examinations of feet and eyes. In the discussion, the possibility of the lack of materials necessary for this evaluation in primary health care units was commented, leading to a low prevalence, especially in people with lower socioeconomic status, who are the ones who most use these services. Paragraph 262 to 267.

• Please check and correct some phrases that could be improved for the better interpretation. For example, the phrase "All requested tests were found in less than half of the sample." could be more clear if transformed to something like "Less than a half of studied population had performed all recommended tests during the 12 month period." Please note that such improvement could be made for several phrases in different parts of the text.

Answer: done.

• From the description of the Brazilian context on page 3 people could get the impression that SUS is the only health care system. According to my knowledge more than 25% of the population has an alternative health insurance paid privately or by the employer, that give them access to the huge private sector within the Brazilian health sector. I assume that access to private sector is much higher among well educated, and therefore explains a large part of the inequalities in care. This context needs to be described and discussed in the paper.

Answer: thanks for the suggestion. We write about the topic on lines 77 to 80.

• It would have been interesting to look at the SII for different federal units, since that would tell us whether different state policies make a difference.

Answer: thanks for the comment, it's an excellent suggestion. We intend to work on future studies that investigate inequalities by federation units. For the present study we preferred to use a nationally representative sample to investigate inequalities at the individual level using a socioeconomic variable.

• On page 11 line 271-275 it is indicated that education is used as proxy for economic level. Why? Education is often used as a measure of socioeconomic position in society. I agree that income or wealth could be very interesting measures but they might not be accessible to the authors. Those lines can be omitted.

Answer: thanks for the suggestion. We agree with you and changed to socioeconomic level

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jun 2022

Inequalities in care for the people with diabetes in Brazil: a nationwide study, 2019

PONE-D-21-11633R3

Dear Dr. Neves,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Boris Bikbov, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have shortly adressed my comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

21 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-11633R3

Inequalities in care for the people with diabetes in Brazil: a nationwide study, 2019

Dear Dr. Neves:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Boris Bikbov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE