Cited by 41Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and ManagementMedication Adherence and Compliance

Adherence to Guidelines and its Effects on Hospitalizations with Complications of Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Sloan, Frank A, Bethel, M. Angelyn, Lee, Paul P., Brown, Derek S., Feinglos, Mark N.·2004·The Review of Diabetic Studies

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study the discrepancy between actual and recommended rates of use among several measures of screening for complications of diabetes in a national longitudinal sample, the correlations among measures of adherence, and whether or not higher rates of adherence reduce hospitalizations for complications of diabetes. The key study hypothesis was that lack of adherence to professional recommendations for diabetes care leads to adverse health outcomes for elderly persons. METHODS: Administrative claims and survey data for 1994-1999 on a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries age 65+. Principal components analysis and instrumental variables probit regression methods were used. RESULTS: Most Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with type 2 diabetes had at least one physician visit per year, but rates of screening (eye examinations and HbA1c, lipid, microalbumin and urine tests) fell far short of recommendations. Correlations among use rates for various types of screening were positive but far less than one, suggesting that failure to screen reflects a complex set of underlying factors. Increased rates of adherence were observed for HbA1c and lipid testing over the observation period. Higher use was associated with lower rates of hospitalization for complications of diabetes (vascular (p=0.007), renal (p=0.002), and other complication (p=0.005)). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines was associated with significantly reduced rates of hospitalization. Continued analysis of the trends in clinical practice is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of standardized guidelines for the care of patients with diabetes.

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 · 10.1900/rds.2004.1.29

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Nonadherence to these health behaviors is independently associated with poor glycemic control; increased rates of vascular, renal, and other complications; and mortality.

    “Nonadherence to these health behaviors is independently associated with poor glycemic control; increased rates of vascular, renal, and other complications; and mortality. 4,5,7”

    From Feasibility and acceptability of a positive psychological intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes (2016) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Abstract (page not provided) reports that greater adherence to diabetes screening guidelines was associated with fewer hospitalizations for vascular, renal, and other complications in Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older. The paper does not establish that nonadherence to health behaviors increased complication rates themselves: the Conclusion says patient-specific glycemic control was unavailable, and the Discussion says the study did not capture mortality. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Nonadherence in type 2 diabetes is independently associated with poor glycemic control, increased rates of vascular, renal, and other complications, and mortality.

    “Nonadherence in T2D is independently associated with poor glycemic control, increased rates of vascular, renal, and other complications, and mortality [7, 8, 11].”

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: 3

  1. Jencks SF, Huff ED, Cuerdon T. Changes in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 19981999 to 20002001. JAMA 2003. 289(3):305312.
  2. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis, 5 th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
  3. Morgan CL, Currie CJ, Stott NC, Smithers M, Butler CC, Peters JR. The prevalence of multiple diabetesrelated compli- cations. Diabet Med 2000. 17(2):146151.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sloan, F. A., Bethel, M. A., Lee, P. P., Brown, D. S., & Feinglos, M. N.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Venue
The Review of Diabetic Studies
Published
2004
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
29-29
ISSN
  • 1613-6071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-0575
OpenAlex
W137489616
Cited by
41
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Review of Diabetic Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, guideline adherence, diabetes complications, hospitalization, diabetes screening, HbA1c testing, lipid testing, microalbuminuria, eye examination, Medicare beneficiaries, older adults, vascular complications, renal complications

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