Comparison of Socioeconomic Disparities in Pump Uptake Among Children With Type 1 Diabetes in 2 Canadian Provinces With Different Payment Models.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 05 2022
02 05 2022
Historique:
entrez:
4
5
2022
pubmed:
5
5
2022
medline:
7
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Insulin pumps improve glycemic control and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Canada's provinces have implemented universal pediatric programs to improve access. However, these programs provide differing financial coverage, allowing for unique cross-jurisdictional comparisons. To evaluate possible socioeconomic status (SES) disparities in pump uptake in Québec, where pumps are fully funded, with those in Manitoba, where pumps are partially funded. Using health administrative databases and a clinical registry, parallel, population-based cohort studies of children with diabetes were conducted from April 1, 2011, in Québec, and April 1, 2012, in Manitoba, until March 31, 2017. In analysis conducted from July 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021, multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to study the association between pump uptake and SES, defined using validated area-based material and social deprivation indices. Children aged 1 to 17 years with T1D were identified using a validated definition in administrative data (Québec) and a clinical registry (Manitoba). Those using pumps before the initiation of provincial programs were excluded. Socioeconomic status. Insulin pump uptake. A total of 2919 children with T1D were identified in Québec: 1550 male (53.1%), mean (SD) age at diagnosis, 8.3 (4.4) years, and 1067 (36.6%) were using a pump. In Manitoba, 636 children were identified: 364 male (57.2%), mean (SD) age at diagnosis, 8.8 (4.4) years, and 106 (16.7%) were using a pump. In Québec, the mean age at diagnosis of T1D was lower in children using the pump compared with those not using a pump (7.6 [4.1] vs 8.7 [4.5] years); sex distribution was similar (562 [52.7%] vs 988 [53.3%] male). No differences in mean (SD) age at diagnosis (8.8 [4.4] vs 8.8 [4.3] years) or sex (57 [53.8%] vs 307 [57.9%] male) were noted in both groups in Manitoba. Increasing material deprivation was associated with decreased pump uptake in both Québec (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93) and Manitoba (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82). Inclusion of ethnic concentration did not change this association. Socioeconomic disparities in pump uptake were greater in Manitoba than Québec (P = .006 by t test; Cochran Q, 8.15; P = .004; I2 = 87.7%; 95% CI, 52.5%-96.8%). The results of this study suggest that the program of full coverage for pumps available in Québec partially mitigates observed SES disparities in uptake and may be a model to improve access for all children with T1D.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35507342
pii: 2791847
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.10464
pmc: PMC9069256
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insulin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2210464Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Pediatrics. 2015 Mar;135(3):424-34
pubmed: 25687140
Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(1):133-140
pubmed: 32938745
J Pediatr. 2009 Aug;155(2):183-9.e1
pubmed: 19394043
Pediatr Diabetes. 2017 Jun;18(4):315-319
pubmed: 27161659
Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr;34(4):898-903
pubmed: 21378211
Pediatrics. 2020 May;145(5):
pubmed: 32312911
Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Sep 11;11:833-843
pubmed: 31572014
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72
pubmed: 30657336
J Pediatr Nurs. 2019 Jan - Feb;44:16-21
pubmed: 30581163
Chronic Dis Can. 2000;21(3):104-13
pubmed: 11082346
Pediatr Diabetes. 2019 Aug;20(5):637-644
pubmed: 30912245
J Pediatr. 2013 Apr;162(4):730-5
pubmed: 23360562
Chronic Dis Inj Can. 2014 Nov;34(4):226-35
pubmed: 25408182
Pediatr Diabetes. 2017 Feb;18(1):33-44
pubmed: 26748950
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Jun;19(6):363-369
pubmed: 28581817
Health Policy. 2016 Jan;120(1):64-71
pubmed: 26563632
N Z Med J. 2019 Mar 8;132(1491):78-89
pubmed: 30845131
Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2007 May;60(Pt 1):29-60
pubmed: 17535578
Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9-16
pubmed: 24356592
Pediatr Diabetes. 2015 Dec;16(8):592-9
pubmed: 25387433
Can J Diabetes. 2021 Jul;45(5):395-402
pubmed: 33109446
Control Clin Trials. 2000 Dec;21(6):552-60
pubmed: 11146149
Pediatr Res. 2020 Sep;88(3):496-502
pubmed: 31935744
Acta Diabetol. 2017 Jan;54(1):63-71
pubmed: 27650535
Diabetes Care. 2013 Jul;36(7):2009-14
pubmed: 23378621
Can J Public Health. 2012 Apr 30;103(8 Suppl 2):S12-6
pubmed: 23618065
Diabetes Care. 2007 Jun;30(6):1653-62
pubmed: 17372151
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36(4):316-23
pubmed: 15636411
Biom J. 2017 Jul;59(4):658-671
pubmed: 27754556
Diabetologia. 2016 Jan;59(1):87-91
pubmed: 26546085
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 15;167(4):268-274
pubmed: 28693043
Can J Diabetes. 2022 Mar;46(2):189-195
pubmed: 35101343
Can J Diabetes. 2018 Apr;42 Suppl 1:S234-S246
pubmed: 29650103
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Sep;22(9):697-700
pubmed: 32077755
Pediatr Diabetes. 2010 Aug;11(5):337-44
pubmed: 19761529
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Nov;15(11):929-34
pubmed: 23869706