Economic status and clinical care in young type 1 diabetes patients: a nationwide multicenter study in Brazil

The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of economic status on clinical care provided to Brazilian youths with type 1 diabetes in daily practice, according to the American Diabetes Association’s guidelines. This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted between 2008 and 2010 in 28...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta diabetologica 2013-10, Vol.50 (5), p.743-752
Hauptverfasser: Gomes, Marilia B., de Mattos Matheus, Alessandra Saldanha, Calliari, Luis Eduardo, Luescher, Jorge Luiz, Manna, Thais Della, Savoldelli, Roberta Diaz, Cobas, Roberta A., Coelho, Wellington Siqueira, Tschiedel, Balduino, Ramos, Alberto José, Fonseca, Reine Marie, Araujo, Neuza Braga C., Almeida, Henriqueta Guido, Melo, Naira Horta, Jezini, Debora Laredo, Negrato, Carlos Antonio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of economic status on clinical care provided to Brazilian youths with type 1 diabetes in daily practice, according to the American Diabetes Association’s guidelines. This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted between 2008 and 2010 in 28 public clinics in Brazil. Data were obtained from 1,692 patients (55.3 % female, 56.4 % Caucasian), with a mean age of 13 years (range, 1–18), a mean age at diagnosis of 7.1 ± 4 years and diabetes duration of 5 ± 3.7 years. Overall, 75 % of the patients were of a low or very low economic status. HbA1c goals were reached by 23.2 %, LDL cholesterol by 57.9 %, systolic blood pressure by 83.9 % and diastolic blood pressure by 73.9 % of the patients. In total, 20.2 % of the patients were overweight and 9.2 % were obese. Patients from very low economic status were less likely to attend tertiary care level when compared with those from low, medium and high economic status, 64.2 % versus 75.5 % versus 78.3 % and 74.0 %; p  
ISSN:0940-5429
1432-5233
DOI:10.1007/s00592-012-0404-3