Insulin pump use and discontinuation in children and teens: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe insulin pump use by youth since introduction of universal funding in Ontario, Canada and to explore the relationship between pump use and pediatric diabetes center characteristics and the relationship between discontinuation and center and patient characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational, population-based cohort study of youth with type 1 diabetes (<19 yr) who received pump funding from 2006 to 2013 (n = 3700). We linked 2012 survey data from 33 pediatric diabetes centers to health administrative databases. We tested the relationship between center-level pump uptake and center characteristics (center type, physician model, and availability of 24-h support) using an adjusted negative binomial model; we studied center- and patient-level factors (socioeconomic status and baseline glycemic control) associated with discontinuation using a Cox proportional hazards model with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Pump users were more likely to be in the highest income quintile than non-pump users (29.6 vs. 19.1%, p < 0.0001). In 2012, mean percent pump use was 38.0% with variability across centers. There was no association between uptake and center characteristics. Discontinuation was low (0.42/100 person-yr) and was associated with being followed at a small community center [hazard ratio (HR): 2.24 (1.05-4.76)] and being more deprived [HR: 2.36 (1.14-1.48)]. Older age was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation [HR: 0.31 (0.14-0.66)]. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of pump use have increased since 2006 and discontinuation is rare. Large variation in uptake across centers was not explained by the factors we examined but may reflect variation in patient populations or practice patterns, and should be further explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".