Could diabetes prevention programmes result in the widening of sociodemographic inequalities in type 2 diabetes? Comparison of survey and administrative data for England.
diabetes mellitus
health inequalities
prevention
primary health care
Journal
Journal of epidemiology and community health
ISSN: 1470-2738
Titre abrégé: J Epidemiol Community Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7909766
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
received:
02
08
2022
accepted:
16
05
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
24
6
2023
entrez:
23
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England is a behavioural intervention for preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH). How this programme affects inequalities by age, sex, limiting illnesses or disability, ethnicity or deprivation is not known. We used multinomial and binary logistic regression models to compare whether the population with NDH at different stages of the programme are representative of the population with NDH: stages include (1) prevalence of NDH (using survey data from UK Household Longitudinal Study (n=794) and Health Survey for England (n=1383)); (2) identification in primary care and offer of programme (using administrative data from the National Diabetes Audit (n=1 267 350)) and (3) programme participation (using programme provider records (n=98 024)). Predicted probabilities drawn from the regressions with demographics as each outcome and dataset identifier as predictors showed that younger adults (aged under 40) (4% of the population with NDH (95% CI 2.4% to 6.5%)) and older adults (aged 80 and above) (12% (95% CI 9.5% to 14.2%)) were slightly under-represented among programme participants (2% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.2%) and 8% (95% CI 7.8% to 8.2%) of programme participants, respectively). People living in deprived areas were under-represented in eight sessions (14% (95% CI 13.7% to 14.4%) vs 20% (95% CI 16.4% to 23.6%) in the general population). Ethnic minorities were over-represented among offers (35% (95% CI 35.1% to 35.6%) vs 13% (95% CI 9.1% to 16.4%) in general population), though the proportion dropped at the programme completion stage (19% (95% CI 18.5% to 19.5%)). The DPP has the potential to reduce ethnic inequalities, but may widen socioeconomic, age and limiting illness or disability-related inequalities in T2DM. While ethnic minority groups are over-represented at the identification and offer stages, efforts are required to support completion of the programme. Programme providers should target under-represented groups to ensure equitable access and narrow inequalities in T2DM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England is a behavioural intervention for preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH). How this programme affects inequalities by age, sex, limiting illnesses or disability, ethnicity or deprivation is not known.
METHODS
We used multinomial and binary logistic regression models to compare whether the population with NDH at different stages of the programme are representative of the population with NDH: stages include (1) prevalence of NDH (using survey data from UK Household Longitudinal Study (n=794) and Health Survey for England (n=1383)); (2) identification in primary care and offer of programme (using administrative data from the National Diabetes Audit (n=1 267 350)) and (3) programme participation (using programme provider records (n=98 024)).
RESULTS
Predicted probabilities drawn from the regressions with demographics as each outcome and dataset identifier as predictors showed that younger adults (aged under 40) (4% of the population with NDH (95% CI 2.4% to 6.5%)) and older adults (aged 80 and above) (12% (95% CI 9.5% to 14.2%)) were slightly under-represented among programme participants (2% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.2%) and 8% (95% CI 7.8% to 8.2%) of programme participants, respectively). People living in deprived areas were under-represented in eight sessions (14% (95% CI 13.7% to 14.4%) vs 20% (95% CI 16.4% to 23.6%) in the general population). Ethnic minorities were over-represented among offers (35% (95% CI 35.1% to 35.6%) vs 13% (95% CI 9.1% to 16.4%) in general population), though the proportion dropped at the programme completion stage (19% (95% CI 18.5% to 19.5%)).
CONCLUSION
The DPP has the potential to reduce ethnic inequalities, but may widen socioeconomic, age and limiting illness or disability-related inequalities in T2DM. While ethnic minority groups are over-represented at the identification and offer stages, efforts are required to support completion of the programme. Programme providers should target under-represented groups to ensure equitable access and narrow inequalities in T2DM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37353312
pii: jech-2022-219654
doi: 10.1136/jech-2022-219654
pmc: PMC10423529
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
565-570Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/48/07
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Diabetes Care Educ Newsl. 2012 Summer;33(4):4-7
pubmed: 26451082
Diabet Med. 2018 Apr;35(4):513-518
pubmed: 29266374
Lancet. 1971 Feb 27;1(7696):405-12
pubmed: 4100731
Age Ageing. 2011 Nov;40(6):659-65
pubmed: 21911335
Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 Apr;4(Pt 2):179-93
pubmed: 19187569
N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346(6):393-403
pubmed: 11832527
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Jul;7(3):186-8
pubmed: 12171751
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Sep 27;10:84
pubmed: 20868528
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Apr;44(4 Suppl 4):S346-51
pubmed: 23498297
Am J Public Health. 2015 Apr;105 Suppl 2:S198-206
pubmed: 25689212
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 6;10(9):e040201
pubmed: 32893192
BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 15;15:894
pubmed: 26373840
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Jan 19;16:21
pubmed: 26787444
PLoS Med. 2010 Aug 24;7(8):e1000320
pubmed: 20811492
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020 Dec;8(2):
pubmed: 33303493
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Jun;7(6):452-461
pubmed: 31036503
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Jan;31(1):67-75
pubmed: 22232096
N Engl J Med. 2001 May 3;344(18):1343-50
pubmed: 11333990
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(1):152-160
pubmed: 31719054
World J Diabetes. 2015 Mar 15;6(2):296-303
pubmed: 25789110
Diabet Med. 2007 Mar;24(3):317-21
pubmed: 17305791
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):1375-1386
pubmed: 27193175
Arch Intern Med. 2004 Sep 27;164(17):1873-80
pubmed: 15451762
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 Nov;19(11):1537-1545
pubmed: 28387052
Nurse Res. 2007;14(4):64-73
pubmed: 17702144
Diabet Med. 2020 Sep;37(9):1536-1544
pubmed: 32531074
Gac Sanit. 2013 Nov-Dec;27(6):494-501
pubmed: 23643719