Race, socioeconomic status, and rurality influences on type 2 diabetes management among North Carolina adults.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of race, socioeconomic status, and rurality on Type 2 diabetes education among adults in North Carolina. METHODS: Our study utilized data from the 2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to conduct a retrospective study and secondary data analysis. To account for the multistage survey design of BRFSS, SAS/SUDAAN was used to calculate adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed to examine the association between race, socioeconomic status, and rurality and its effects on type 2 diabetes education among adults in North Carolina. MAIN FINDINGS: The majority of the participants (63%) did not have good diabetes education. Non-Whites had higher odds than Whites of good diabetes education (OR=1.56, 95%CI: 1.19, 2.03). Individuals who lived in rural North Carolina had lower odds of having good diabetes education than their urban counterparts, but the results remained insignificant (OR=.88, CI: .67, 1.15). Individuals who were of low socioeconomic status (SES) had poorer diabetes education than individuals who were identified as being high SES, but the results were insignificant (OR=.81, CI: .60, 1.09). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the study indicate that non-White adults had higher odds than Whites of good type 2 diabetes education in North Carolina. The results of our study could be used for policies and recommendations for health organizations. Policy makers should make diabetes education mandatory for individuals who are diagnosed with this disease. Future studies should have a more accurate measurement of type 2 diabetes education.

Racial influences on diabetes management among adults in North Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact race and socioeconomic status (SES) has on diabetes management among adults in North Carolina. DESIGN: Our study utilized data from the 2008 BRFSS to conduct a retrospective study and secondary data analysis. To account for the multistage survey design of BRFSS, SAS/SUDAAN was used to calculate adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the impact race and SES has on diabetes management among North Carolina adults. RESULTS: The majority of the participants (63.34%) did not have good diabetes management based on the education and blood glucose criteria of our study. Non-Whites had higher odds than Whites to have good diabetes management practices (OR = 1.56, CI: 1.19, 2.03). Individuals who were low SES had poorer diabetes management than individuals who were identified as being high SES (OR = .81, CI: .60, 1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in good diabetes management practices were found among the variables of race, and SES. Findings from the study indicate that non-White adults had higher odds of good diabetes management practices than Whites in North Carolina. The results of this study could be used for policies and recommendations for health organizations. If health insurance policies required diabetes education classes a reduction in diabetes complications may be observed. Future studies should have a more accurate measurement of diabetes management; proxy measures were used in this study that relied on self-report and may not have provided the best measurement for diabetes management.