Cited by 53Diabetes Treatment and ManagementChronic Disease Management StrategiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Perceptions of Quality‐of‐Life Effects of Treatments for Diabetes Mellitus in Vulnerable and Nonvulnerable Older Patients

Open access
Brown, Sydney E. S., Meltzer, David O., Chin, Marshall H., Huang, Elbert S.·2008·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether patient perceptions of treatments for diabetes mellitus differ according to clinical criteria such as limited life expectancy and functional decline (i.e., vulnerability). DESIGN: Cross‐sectional survey. SETTING: Clinics affiliated with two Chicago‐area hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 and older living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (N=332). MEASUREMENTS: Utilities (quantitative measures of preference on a scale from 0 to 1, with 0 representing a state equivalent to death and 1 representing life in perfect health) were assessed for nine hypothetical treatment states using time trade‐off questions, and patients were queried about specific concerns regarding medications. Vulnerability was defined according to the Vulnerable Elders Scale. RESULTS: Thirty‐six percent of patients were vulnerable. Vulnerable patients were older (77 vs 73) and had diabetes mellitus longer (13 vs 10 years; P <.05). Vulnerable patients reported lower utilities than nonvulnerable patients for most individual treatment states (e.g., intensive glucose control, mean 0.61 vs 0.72, P <.01), but within group variation was large for both groups (e.g., standard deviations >0.25). Although mean individual state utilities differed across groups, no significant differences were found in how vulnerable and nonvulnerable patients compared intensive and conventional treatment states (e.g., intensive vs conventional glucose control). In multivariable analyses, the association between vulnerability and individual treatment state utilities became nonsignificant except for the cholesterol pill. CONCLUSION: Older patients' preferences for intensity of treatment for diabetes mellitus vary widely and are not closely associated with vulnerability. This observation underscores the importance of involving older patients in decisions about treatment for diabetes mellitus, irrespective of clinical status.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01757.x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Older adults vary in their preferences for the intensity and mode of glucose management.

    “Older adults also vary in their preferences for the intensity and mode of glucose management (54).”
  • Older adults vary in their preferences for the intensity and mode of glucose management.

    “Older adults also vary in their preferences for the intensity and mode of glucose management (64).”

    From 13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [64]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4]Nathan DM, Singer DE, Godine JE, et al. Retinopathy in older type 2 diabetics: association with glucose control. Diabetes. 1986;35:797–801. doi: 10.2337/diab.35.7.797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  2. [6]Kuller LH. Stroke and Diabetes. In: Harris MI, editor. Diabetes in America. 2. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 1995. pp. 449–56. [Google Scholar]
  3. [24]U. K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ. 1998;317:703–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [31]Reader D, Carstensen K. Five good food habits for people with diabetes. Park Nicollet Medical Foundation; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. [35]Ware JEJ, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. 2. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, S. E. S., Meltzer, D. O., Chin, M. H., & Huang, E. S.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Elbert S.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07
Volume
56
Issue
7
Pages
1183-1190
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2115976473
Cited by
53
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • California Health Care Foundation
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (P30-CD000147)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (U36-CCU319276)
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG021963)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P60DK20595, K24DK071933, P60DK020595)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, older adults, patient preferences, quality of life, treatment intensity, vulnerable elderly, time trade-off, utility, tight glycemic control, patient involvement in treatment decisions, medication concerns
MeSH terms
Aged, Chicago, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Geriatric Assessment, Patient Satisfaction

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