4.3 Article

Effects of Body Mass Index and Pay-for-Performance Program on Risk of Death in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Cohort Study

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094648

关键词

body mass index; diabetic; pay-for-performance; death risk

资金

  1. China Medical University [CMU109-MF-96, DOH10642]
  2. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that diabetes patients with lower BMI had higher mortality rates, while participation in the P4P program could lower the risk of death, especially in the underweight or obese groups.
Background: The diabetes patients enrolled in the pay-for-performance (P4P) program demonstrate reduced risk of death. Body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor of all-cause death. This study investigates the effects of BMI and P4P on the risk of death in type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. The study population includes the 3-wave National Health Interview Survey in Taiwan. A total of 6354 patients with diabetes aged >= 20 years were enrolled and followed up until the end of 2014. Results: The highest mortality rate per 1000 person-years was 61.05 in the underweight patients with diabetes. A lower crude death rate was observed in the P4P participants than non-P4P participants. The risk of death was 1.86 times higher in the underweight patients with diabetes than that in the normal weight group (95% CI: 1.37-2.53) and was lower in the P4P participants, as compared to the non-participants (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.69). The most significant effect of joining the P4P program in reducing death risk was found in the underweight patients with diabetes (HR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04-0.38), followed by the obesity group (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.52). Conclusions: Different effects of joining the P4P program on reducing death risk were observed in the underweight and obesity groups. We strongly recommend that patients with diabetes and without healthy BMIs participate in the P4P program.

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

4.3
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