4.2 Article

Disparities in Insulin Pump Therapy Persist in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Despite Rising Overall Pump Use Rates

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2018.10.005

Keywords

Type 1 diabetes; Insulin pump; Health disparities; Pediatrics

Funding

  1. Institute for Translational Health Sciences Rising Stars Program (NIH/NCATS/CTSA) [UL1TR000423]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study sought to determine if disparities in insulin pump therapy among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) persist despite recent increases in overall pump use rates. Design and Methods: All patients aged 6 months-17 years, diagnosed with T1DM, and completed 4+ outpatient diabetes visits at an academically-affiliated pediatric health care center from 2011 to 2016 were identified (n= 2131). Data were collected from existing electronic medical records and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with insulin pump therapy. Results: Findings revealed one novel factor (patients/families whose primary language is Spanish [OR 0.47, p = 0.038] or other non-English languages [OR 0.47, p = 0.028]) and confirmed several previously known factors associated with lower insulin pump use: patients who were older (10-14 years OR 0.38, p < 0.0001; 15+ years OR 0.15, p < 0.0001), male (OR 0.80, p = 0.021), non-Hispanic black (OR 0.59, p = 0.009), American Indian/Alaska Native (OR 0.19, p = 0.023), had either government (OR 0.42, p < 0.0001) or no insurance (OR 0.52, p = 0.004) and poor glycemic control (at least one HbA(1c) <= 8.5%; OR 0.54, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Significant disparities in insulin pump use in youth with T1DM persist despite known benefits associated with pump therapy and underlying causes remain unclear. Practice Implications: Health care providers should explore barriers to insulin pump therapy, including limited English language proficiency. (c) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available