4.6 Article

Prevalence, Correlates, and Description of Self-Reported Diabetes in Brazilian Capitals - Results from a Telephone Survey

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108044

关键词

-

资金

  1. Secretariat of Health Surveillance of the Ministry of Health (SVS/MS) of Brazil, Brasilia-DF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The prevalence of diabetes is increasing worldwide. The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of self-reported diabetes in Brazilian adults and to describe its population correlates as well as the clinical characteristics of the reported cases. Methods: We analyzed basic and supplementary data of 54.144 subjects participating in VIGITEL 2011 (Surveillance System for Risk and Protective Factors for Chronic Diseases), a telephone survey based on a probabilistic sample of subjects >= 18 years old residing in Brazilian state capitals and the Federal District. Estimates reported are weighted so as to represent the surveyed population. Results: The prevalence of self-reported diabetes was 6.3% (95% CI 5.9-6.7), increasing markedly with age and nutritional status, and decreasing with level of education. Prevalence was higher among those self-declaring their race/color as black. Most cases (90%) reported the diagnosis being made at 35 years or older. The vast majority (99.8%) of self-reported cases informed having previously performed at least one glucose test, and 76% of those not reporting diabetes also informed having previously performed glucose testing. Most cases (92.6%) reported following some form of diabetes treatment, 79% taking medication. Conclusion: The estimated prevalence of known diabetes found, 6.3%, is consistent with estimates given by international summaries. The additional data collected in VIGITEL 2011 regarding previous glucose testing and current treatment support the use of telephone-based information to monitor the prevalence of known diabetes in Brazilian capitals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据