University of Florida Diabetes Institute, Gainesville, FL
Department of Health Services Research, Management, and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Diabetes Care. 2021 Jul;44(7):1480-1490. doi: 10.2337/dc20-2753. Epub 2021 May 17.
Disparities in type 1 diabetes related to use of technologies like continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and utilization of diabetes care are pronounced based on socioeconomic status (SES), race, and ethnicity. However, systematic reports of perspectives from patients in vulnerable communities regarding barriers are limited.
To better understand barriers, focus groups were conducted in Florida and California with adults ≥18 years old with type 1 diabetes with selection criteria including hospitalization for diabetic ketoacidosis, HbA >9%, and/or receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center. Sixteen focus groups were conducted in English or Spanish with 86 adults (mean age 42 ± 16.2 years). Transcript themes and pre-focus group demographic survey data were analyzed. In order of frequency, barriers to diabetes technology and endocrinology care included ) provider level (negative provider encounters), ) system level (financial coverage), and ) individual level (preferences).
Over 50% of participants had not seen an endocrinologist in the past year or were only seen once including during hospital visits. In Florida, there was less technology use overall (38% used CGMs in FL and 63% in CA; 43% used pumps in FL and 69% in CA) and significant differences in pump use by SES ( = 0.02 in FL; = 0.08 in CA) and race/ethnicity ( = 0.01 in FL; = 0.80 in CA). In California, there were significant differences in CGM use by race/ethnicity ( = 0.05 in CA; = 0.56 in FL) and education level ( = 0.02 in CA; = 0.90 in FL).
These findings provide novel insights into the experiences of vulnerable communities and demonstrate the need for multilevel interventions aimed at offsetting disparities in diabetes.
基于社会经济地位(SES)、种族和民族,1 型糖尿病患者在使用连续血糖监测仪(CGM)等技术和利用糖尿病护理方面存在明显差异。然而,关于弱势群体患者在这些障碍方面的观点,系统报告非常有限。
为了更好地了解障碍,在佛罗里达州和加利福尼亚州对年龄在 18 岁及以上的 1 型糖尿病患者进行了焦点小组讨论,选择标准包括因糖尿病酮症酸中毒住院、HbA >9%和/或在合格的联邦健康中心接受治疗。用英语或西班牙语进行了 16 次焦点小组讨论,共有 86 名成年人(平均年龄 42 ± 16.2 岁)参加。对主题和焦点小组前的人口调查数据进行了分析。按频率顺序,糖尿病技术和内分泌护理的障碍包括)提供者层面(负面的提供者遭遇)、)系统层面(财务覆盖)和)个体层面(偏好)。
超过 50%的参与者在过去一年中没有见过内分泌科医生,或者只是在住院期间见过一次。在佛罗里达州,总体上使用的技术较少(38%在佛罗里达州使用 CGM,63%在加利福尼亚州使用;43%在佛罗里达州使用泵,69%在加利福尼亚州使用),而且 SES(佛罗里达州 = 0.02;加利福尼亚州 = 0.08)和种族/民族(佛罗里达州 = 0.01;加利福尼亚州 = 0.80)之间的泵使用存在显著差异。在加利福尼亚州,种族/民族(加利福尼亚州 = 0.05;佛罗里达州 = 0.56)和教育程度(加利福尼亚州 = 0.02;佛罗里达州 = 0.90)之间的 CGM 使用存在显著差异。
这些发现提供了关于弱势群体社区的经验的新见解,并表明需要采取多层次的干预措施,以消除糖尿病方面的差异。