IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002942.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disparities in glycaemic control, monitoring, and treatment of type 2 diabetes in England: A retrospective cohort analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Martin B Whyte
  • William Hinton
  • Andrew McGovern
  • Jeremy van Vlymen
  • Filipa Ferreira
  • Silvio Calderara
  • Julie Mount
  • Neil Munro
  • Simon de Lusignan

Abstract

Background: Disparities in type 2 diabetes (T2D) care provision and clinical outcomes have been reported in the last 2 decades in the UK. Since then, a number of initiatives have attempted to address this imbalance. The aim was to evaluate contemporary data as to whether disparities exist in glycaemic control, monitoring, and prescribing in people with T2D. Methods and findings: A T2D cohort was identified from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre dataset: a nationally representative sample of 164 primary care practices (general practices) across England. Diabetes healthcare provision and glucose-lowering medication use between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016 were studied. Healthcare provision included annual HbA1c, renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]), blood pressure (BP), retinopathy, and neuropathy testing. Variables potentially associated with disparity outcomes were assessed using mixed effects logistic and linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and nested using random effects within general practices. Ethnicity was defined using the Office for National Statistics ethnicity categories: White, Mixed, Asian, Black, and Other (including Arab people and other groups not classified elsewhere). From the primary care adult population (n = 1,238,909), we identified a cohort of 84,452 (5.29%) adults with T2D. The mean age of people with T2D in the included cohort at 31 December 2016 was 68.7 ± 12.6 years; 21,656 (43.9%) were female. The mean body mass index was 30.7 ± SD 6.4 kg/m2. The most deprived groups (IMD quintiles 1 and 2) showed poorer HbA1c than the least deprived (IMD quintile 5). People of Black ethnicity had worse HbA1c than those of White ethnicity. Asian individuals were less likely than White individuals to be prescribed insulin (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.79–0.95; p

Suggested Citation

  • Martin B Whyte & William Hinton & Andrew McGovern & Jeremy van Vlymen & Filipa Ferreira & Silvio Calderara & Julie Mount & Neil Munro & Simon de Lusignan, 2019. "Disparities in glycaemic control, monitoring, and treatment of type 2 diabetes in England: A retrospective cohort analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002942
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002942
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002942&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002942?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tsai, Wen-Chen & Huang, Kuang-Hua & Chen, Pei-Chun & Chang, Yu-Chia & Chen, Michael S. & Lee, Chiachi Bonnie, 2023. "Effects of individual and neighborhood social risks on diabetes pay-for-performance program under a single-payer health system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002942. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.