4.5 Article

Racial and ethnic differences in diabetes mellitus among people with and without psychiatric disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 107-115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.11.011

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; Psychiatric disorders; Health disparities; NESARC

资金

  1. New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI)
  2. New York State Center of Excellence for Cultural Competence at NYSPI
  3. NIH [L60 MD001850-03, R01 DA019606, R01 MH076051, K02 DA023200, R01 MH77226]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study examined racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in a nationally representative sample of adults with and without common psychiatric disorders. Method: Data were drawn from Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N=34,653). Logistic regression models adjusting for sociodemographic variables and diabetes risk factors were used to examine racial/ethnic differences in 12-month prevalence rates of diabetes by psychiatric status. Results: Among people without psychiatric disorders, African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians/Alaska Natives, but not Asians/Pacific Islanders, had significantly higher rates of diabetes than non-Hispanic whites even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and diabetes risk factors. In the presence of psychiatric disorders, these health disparities persisted for African Americans and Hispanics, but not for American Indians/Alaska Natives. No significant interactions between race/ethnicity and psychiatric disorders in the odds of diabetes were found across any group. Conclusion: Policies and services that support culturally appropriate prevention and treatment strategies are needed to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes among people with and without psychiatric disabilities. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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