Trends in the Prevalence of Diabetes Among U.S. Adults: 1999–2016
Abstract
Introduction The prevalence of diabetes has increased substantially over the past three decades. This study sought to estimate recent trends in the prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults.Methods This paper estimated trends in the prevalence of diagnosed, undiagnosed, and total diabetes among U.S. adults from 1999-2000 to 2015-2016 (analyzed in 2017). Data come from 42,554 respondents aged ≥20 years who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diagnosed diabetes was measured through self-report, undiagnosed diabetes was measured as never being diagnosed with diabetes but having glycated hemoglobin levels ≥6.5%, and total diabetes was measured as the sum of individuals with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes.Results In the overall U.S. adult population, the unadjusted prevalence of total diabetes increased from 7.7% in 1999-2000 to 13.3% in 2015-2016 (p<0.001 for trend). Growth was observed for all subgroups, though the rate of change was higher in older adults, racial minorities, and those who were obese compared with their peers. Increasing prevalence among Mexican-American adults was particularly pronounced, rising by 10.1 percentage points during the study period (8.3% to 18.4%, p<0.001). Roughly 40% of the increase in total diabetes was accounted for by changes in the age and rates of obesity in the U.S.Population Conclusions From 1999 to 2016, the prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults increased at a substantial rate. This growth occurred differentially across subgroups, particularly impacting Mexican-American adults, and was driven in large part by population aging and increasing obesity rates.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The percentage of diabetics rises with age.
“A study in America has suggested that the percentage of diabetics rises with age (9).”
From Diabetes and Sarcopenic Obesity: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatments (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 81
- Authors
- Fang, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fang, Michael
- ORCID
- Fang, Michael
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 497-505
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2886282582
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 6.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- diabetes prevalence, temporal trends, undiagnosed diabetes, diagnosed diabetes, HbA1c, Mexican American adults, racial and ethnic disparities, obesity, population aging, older adults, racial minorities, United States adults
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Black or African American, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Obesity, United States, Prevalence, Mexican Americans, Black People, White People, Racial Groups, 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