4.7 Article

Improving the comparability of diabetes mortality statistics in the US and Mexico

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 451-458

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1370

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The aim of this study was to increase the cross-state comparability of diabetes mortality statistics related in the U.S. and Mexico. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate the effects of individual and community factors on a death for which diabetes was recorded as one of the multiple contributing causes of death (MCD) being assigned to diabetes as the underlying cause of death (UCD) versus assignment to cardiovascular, other noncommunicable, or communicable diseases. We used the model to estimate state-level diabetes death rates that are standardized in the individual and community factors. RESULTS - Deaths with diabetes as one of the MCD were more likely to be assigned to cardiovascular causes as the UCD if they occurred in hospitals or if an autopsy was performed and if the decedents were from states with higher BMI and systolic blood pressure, were more educated, or had insurance. Adjusting for individual- and community-level factors substantially increased the cross-state correlation of diabetes as the UCD and diabetes as one of the MCD mortality rates. The adjustment also reduced the number of direct diabetes deaths by 10% in the U.S. and by 24% in Mexico. In the U.S., deaths with diabetes as the UCD declined most in Utah, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Louisiana and increased in California and Hawaii. In Mexico, the numbers of adjusted diabetes deaths were smaller than those observed in all states by 3-34%. An additional 126,300 deaths due to ischemic heart disease and stroke in the U.S. and 19,497 in Mexico were attributable to high blood glucose. CONCLUSIONS - There is a need to improve the comparability of diabetes cause-of-death assignment, especially in relation to cardiovascular diseases.

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