4.1 Article

Prevalence of comorbidity in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes and its association with elevated HbA1c: A cross-sectional study in Croatia

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2015.1132886

关键词

Comorbidity; Croatia; general practice; HbA1c; type 2 diabetes

资金

  1. Association of Teachers in General Practice/Family Medicine (ATGP/FM) in Croatia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To the authors' knowledge, there are few valid data that describe the prevalence of comorbidity in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients seen in family practice. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of comorbidities and their association with elevated (7.0%) haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) using a large sample of T2DM patients from primary care practices. Design A cross-sectional study in which multivariate logistic regression was applied to explore the association of comorbidities with elevated HbA1c. Setting Primary care practices in Croatia. Subjects Altogether, 10 264 patients with diabetes in 449 practices. Main outcome measures Comorbidities and elevated HbA1c. Results In total 7979 (77.7%) participants had comorbidity. The mean number of comorbidities was 1.6 (SD 1.28). Diseases of the circulatory system were the most common (7157, 69.7%), followed by endocrine and metabolic diseases (3093, 30.1%), and diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (1437, 14.0%). After adjustment for age and sex, the number of comorbidities was significantly associated with HbA1c. The higher the number of comorbidities, the lower the HbA1c. The prevalence of physicians' inertia was statistically significantly and negatively associated with the number of comorbidities (Mann-Whitney U test, Z=-12.34; p<0.001; r=-0.12). Conclusion There is a high prevalence of comorbidity among T2DM patients in primary care. A negative association of number of comorbidities and HbA1c is probably moderated by physicians' inertia in treatment of T2DM strictly according to guidelines.

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

4.1
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