Disparities in adherence to diabetes screening guidelines among males and females in a universal care setting: A population-based study of 1,380,697 adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: National guidelines recommend that all adults over the age of 40 years undergo screening for diabetes at least once every 3-years. We examined the adherence to these guidelines among males and females after accounting for age, urban/rural residence, and material deprivation. We also examined the incidence of prediabetes and diabetes in adherent and non-adherent individuals. Methods: Our study is based on a retrospective population-level inception cohort of adults aged 40-79 years without pre-existing diabetes or cardiovascular disease on April 1, 2013. Adherence during a 3-year screening period (2013-2016) and prediabetes and diabetes during a 4-year follow-up period were examined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the adjusted association between sex and adherence. Findings: Among 1,380,697 individuals (49·2% male, 50·8% female) adherence rates were 69·9% in males and 79·8% in females. Sex-differences in adherence were largest in younger individuals (58·0% and 72·6% and in males and females aged 40-44 years, respectively) and consistent across rural/urban residence and material deprivation. Females were more adherent (adjusted odds ratio 1·92; 95% confidence interval 1·89 to 1·95) than males. Prediabetes and diabetes rates among individuals who adhered to screening guidelines were 15·7% and 2·6% among males and 13·4% and 1·5% among females. During the follow-up period, an additional 3·2% and 1·9% of adherent males and females had diabetes. Incidence rates of prediabetes and diabetes during the follow-up period among individuals who did not adhere to screening guidelines were 8·8% and 2·1% among males and 7·3% and 1·3% among females. Interpretation: Adherence to diabetes screening guidelines is sub-optimal, especially among young males. Despite lower rates of adherence to screening, males have higher rates of prediabetes and diabetes compared to females. There is a need for education campaigns to improve diabetes screening rates in young adults, especially males. Funding: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair (Recipient: Kaul).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".