4.7 Article

Sex Disparities in the Quality of Diabetes Care: Biological and Cultural Factors May Play a Different Role for Different Outcomes A cross-sectional observational study from the AMD Annals initiative

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 36, Issue 10, Pages 3162-3168

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc13-0184

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVETo investigate the quality of type 2 diabetes care according to sex.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSClinical data collected during the year 2009 were extracted from electronic medical records; quality-of-care indicators were evaluated. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate the likelihood of women versus men to be monitored for selected parameters, to reach clinical outcomes, and to be treated with specific classes of drugs. The intercenter variability in the proportion of men and women achieving the targets was also investigated.RESULTSOverall, 415,294 patients from 236 diabetes outpatient centers were evaluated, of whom 188,125 (45.3%) were women and 227,169 (54.7%) were men. Women were 14% more likely than men to have HbA(1c) >9.0% in spite of insulin treatment (odds ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.10-1.17]), 42% more likely to have LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) 130 mg/dL (1.42 [1.38-1.46]) in spite of lipid-lowering treatment, and 50% more likely to have BMI 30 kg/m(2) (1.50 [1.50-1.54]). Women were less likely to be monitored for foot and eye complications. In 99% of centers, the percentage of men reaching the LDL-C target was higher than in women, the proportion of patients reaching the HbA(1c) target was in favor of men in 80% of the centers, and no differences emerged for blood pressure.CONCLUSIONSWomen show a poorer quality of diabetes care than men. The attainment of the LDL-C target seems to be mainly related to pathophysiological factors, whereas patient and physician attitudes can play an important role in other process measures and outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available