» Articles » PMID: 32148738

Identifying Diabetes Management Opportunity Areas in the USA

Overview
Date 2020 Mar 10
PMID 32148738
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Using adherence to diabetes management guidelines as a case study, this paper applied a novel geospatial hot-spot and cold-spot methodology to identify priority counties to target interventions. Data for this study were obtained from the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare, the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey and the University of Wisconsin County Health Rankings. A geospatial approach was used to identify four tiers of priority counties for diabetes preventive and management services: diabetes management cold-spots, clusters of counties with low rates of adherence to diabetes preventive and management services (Tier D); Medicare spending hot-spots, clusters of counties with high rates of spending and were diabetes management cold-spots (Tier C); preventable hospitalisation hot-spots, clusters of counties with high rates of spending and are diabetes management cold-spots (Tier B); and counties that were located in a diabetes management cold-spot cluster, preventable hospitalisation hot-spot cluster and Medicare spending hot-spot cluster (Tier A). The four tiers of priority counties were geographically concentrated in Texas and Oklahoma, the Southeast and central Appalachia. Of these tiers, there were 62 Tier A counties. Rates of preventable hospitalisations and Medicare spending were higher in Tier A counties compared with national averages. These same counties had much lower rates of adherence to diabetes preventive and management services. The novel geospatial mapping approach used in this study may allow practitioners and policy makers to target interventions in areas that have the highest need. Further refinement of this approach is necessary before making policy recommendations.

Citing Articles

Social Determinants and Health Disparities Pertaining to Diabetes in Appalachia.

Borgemenke S, Hughes A J Prim Care Community Health. 2023; 14:21501319231192327.

PMID: 37571832 PMC: 10422881. DOI: 10.1177/21501319231192327.

References
1.
Stevens C, Schriger D, Raffetto B, Davis A, Zingmond D, Roby D . Geographic clustering of diabetic lower-extremity amputations in low-income regions of California. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33(8):1383-90. PMC: 4242846. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0148. View

2.
Gabert R, Thomson B, Gakidou E, Roth G . Identifying High-Risk Neighborhoods Using Electronic Medical Records: A Population-Based Approach for Targeting Diabetes Prevention and Treatment Interventions. PLoS One. 2016; 11(7):e0159227. PMC: 4963128. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159227. View

3.
Hipp J, Chalise N . Spatial analysis and correlates of county-level diabetes prevalence, 2009-2010. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015; 12:E08. PMC: 4303405. DOI: 10.5888/pcd12.140404. View

4.
Caro J, Ward A, OBrien J . Lifetime costs of complications resulting from type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25(3):476-81. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.476. View

5.
Sargen M, Hoffstad O, Margolis D . Geographic variation in Medicare spending and mortality for diabetic patients with foot ulcers and amputations. J Diabetes Complications. 2012; 27(2):128-33. PMC: 3673572. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2012.09.003. View