Cited by 132Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management

Diabetes Care and Outcomes: Disparities Across Rural America

Hale, Nathan L., Bennett, Kevin J., Probst, Janice C.·2010·Journal of Community Health

Abstract

We examined differences in receipt of diabetes care and selected outcomes between rural and urban persons living with diabetes, using nationally representative data from the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). "Rural" was defined as living in a non-metropolitan county. Diabetes care variables were physician visit, HbA1c testing, foot examination, and dilated eye examination. Outcome variables were presence of foot sores and diabetic retinopathy. Analysis was limited to persons 18 and older self-reporting a diagnosis of diabetes (n = 29,501). A lower proportion of rural than urban persons with diabetes reported a dilated eye examination (69.1 vs. 72.4%; P = 0.005) or a foot examination in the past year (70.6 vs. 73.7%; P = 0.016). Conversely, a greater proportion of rural than urban persons reported diabetic retinopathy (25.8 vs. 22.0%; P = 0.007) and having a foot sore taking more than four weeks to heal (13.2 vs. 11.2%; P = 0.036). Rural residence was not associated with receipt of services after individual characteristics were taken into account in adjusted analysis, but remained associated with an increased risk for retinopathy (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.02-1.42). Participation in Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) was positively associated with all measures of diabetes care included in the study. Availability of specialty services and travel considerations could explain some of these differences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10900-010-9259-0

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hale, N. L., Bennett, K. J., & Probst, J. C.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Hale, Nathan L.
Venue
Journal of Community Health
Published
2010-04-14
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
365-374
ISSN
  • 0094-5145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3610
OpenAlex
W1982328152
Cited by
132
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Health Resources and Services Administration
  • U.S. Public Health Service (U1CRH03711)
  • Office of Rural Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Keywords
diabetes management, urban-rural differences, rural health, diabetes self-management education, diabetic retinopathy, foot ulcer, HbA1c testing, dilated eye examination, foot examination, travel barriers, nonmetropolitan counties
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rural Health, United States, Urban Health, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Rural Health Services, Urban Health Services, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Healthcare Disparities, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review