Disparities in adherence to diabetes screening guidelines among males and females in a universal care setting: A population-based study of 1,389,697 adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesNational guidelines recommend that all adults over the age of 40 years undergo screening for diabetes at least once every 3-years. We examined the association between sex and adherence to diabetes screening after accounting for age, urban/rural residence and material deprivation. We also examined the subsequent incidence of prediabetes and diabetes in adherent and non-adherent individuals. ApproachOur 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. Data on hospitalizations, emergency department visits, ambulatory clinic visits, physician billing claims, pharmaceutical claims, centralized laboratory data, vital statistics death registry, and census data at the neighbourhood level were linked at the patient level for years 2013 to 2020. 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. ResultsAmong 1,389,697 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 categories. Females were more adherent (adjusted odds ratio 1.93; 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 1.97) than males. Among adherent males and females, 65.3% and 64.8% had at least one Haemoglobin A1C, respectively during the screening period. During the follow-up period, prediabetes and diabetes rates among males who were adherent were 25.9% and 5.2%, compared to 8.8% and 2.1% among non-adherent males; and 20.2% and 2.9% among adherent and 7.3% and 1.3% among non-adherent females. ConclusionsDespite lower rates of adherence to screening, males have higher rates of prediabetes and diabetes compared to females. Our study highlights the need to develop education campaigns and targeted interventions at the local and population level to raise awareness and improve diabetes screening rates in young people, especially males.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".