Cited by 26Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

The impact of ethnicity, educational and economic status on the prescription of insulin therapeutic regimens and on glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. A nationwide study in Brazil

Gomes, Marilia Brito, Rodacki, Melanie, Pavin, Elizabeth João, Cobas, Roberta Arnoldi, Felicio, João S., Zajdenverg, Lenita, Negrato, Carlos Antonio·2017·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

Aims Establish the relationship between demographic, educational and economic status on insulin therapeutic regimens (ITRs) and on glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Methods This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study with 1760 patients conducted between August 2011 and August 2014 in 10 Brazilian cities. Results Patients were stratified according to ITRs as follows: only NPH insulin (group 1, n=80(4.5%)); only long-acting insulin analogs (group 2, n=6(0.3%)); continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) (group 3, n=62(3.5%)); NPH plus regular insulin (group 4, n=710(40.3%)); NPH plus ultra-rapid insulin analogs (group 5, n=259(14.8%)); long-acting insulin analogs plus regular insulin (group 6, n=25(4.4%)) and long-acting plus ultra-rapid insulin analogs (group 7, n=618 (35.1%)). As group A (provided free of charge by the government) we considered groups 1 and 4, and as group B (obtained through lawsuit or out-of-pocket) groups 2, 3 and 7. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that independent variables related to group B were older age, more years of school attendance, higher economic status and ethnicity (Caucasians). The independent variables related to better glycemic control were older age, higher adherence to diet, higher frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, more years of school attendance and belonging to group B. Conclusions In Brazilian National Health Care System, prescriptions of insulin analogs or CSII are more frequent in Caucasian…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.09.013

Cites

37 of 37 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

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gomes, M. B., Rodacki, M., Pavin, E. J., Cobas, R. A., Felicio, J. S., Zajdenverg, L., & Negrato, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
  • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
134
Pages
44-52
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2757491520
Cited by
26
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, glycemic control, insulin analogues, insulin pump therapy, NPH insulin, educational attainment, economic status, ethnicity, racial disparities, self-monitoring of blood glucose, dietary adherence, Brazil
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Brazil, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Economics, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Retrospective Studies, Multivariate Analysis

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