4.7 Article

Diagnosed and Undiagnosed Diabetes Prevalence by County in the US, 1999-2012

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 1556-1562

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc16-0678

关键词

-

资金

  1. State of Washington
  2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE Previous analyses of diabetes prevalence in the U.S. have considered either only large geographic regions or only individuals in whom diabetes had been diagnosed. We estimated county-level trends in the prevalence of diagnosed, undiagnosed, and total diabetes as well as rates of diagnosis and effective treatment from 1999 to 2012. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used a two-stage modeling procedure. In the first stage, self-reported and biomarker data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were used to build models for predicting true diabetes status, which were applied to impute true diabetes status for respondents in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). In the second stage, small area models were fit to imputed BRFSS data to derive county-level estimates of diagnosed, undiagnosed, and total diabetes prevalence, as well as rates of diabetes diagnosis and effective treatment. RESULTS In 2012, total diabetes prevalence ranged from 8.8% to 26.4% among counties, whereas the proportion of the total number of cases that had been diagnosed ranged from 59.1% to 79.8%, and the proportion of successfully treated individuals ranged from 19.4% to 31.0%. Total diabetes prevalence increased in all counties between 1999 and 2012; however, the rate of increase varied widely. Over the same period, rates of diagnosis increased in all counties, while rates of effective treatment stagnated. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate substantial disparities in diabetes prevalence, rates of diagnosis, and rates of effective treatment within the U.S. These findings should be used to target high-burden areas and select the right mix of public health strategies.

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

4.7
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