自述参与糖尿病自我管理教育的城乡差异。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Emma Boswell, Jan Probst, Peiyin Hung, Laura Herbert, Elizabeth Crouch
{"title":"自述参与糖尿病自我管理教育的城乡差异。","authors":"Emma Boswell, Jan Probst, Peiyin Hung, Laura Herbert, Elizabeth Crouch","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000001928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Rural America faces a dual challenge with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (hereafter, diabetes) and diabetes-related mortality. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) can improve glucose control and reduce adverse effects of diabetes, but certified DSME programs remain disproportionately limited in rural counties than in urban counties.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study is to examine the proportion of urban and rural adults who report having received DSME using a nationwide, 29-state survey while considering the potential consequences of lower service availability.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Residence was defined as urban (metropolitan county) vs rural (non-metropolitan county). Logistic regression, incorporated survey weights, was used to determine the odds of having received DSME by residence.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>BRFSS is a nationally representative survey, and this study included participants from 29 states that were distributed throughout all regions of the United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The study sample consisted of 28,179 adults who reported having diabetes, lived in one of the states that administered the diabetes module in 2019, and answered all relevant questions.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The main outcome measure was whether a participant had ever received DSME. Participants were considered to have received DSME if they self-reported having ever taken a class on how to manage diabetes themselves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 54.5% of participants reported having received DSME; proportionately fewer rural residents (50.4%, ±1.1%) than urban residents (55.5%, ±1.0%) reported DSME. Rural disparities persisted after adjusting for demographic, enabling, and need factors (Adjusted Odds Ratio  = 0.79; CI, 0.71-0.89). By sociodemographic factors, Hispanic persons vs non-Hispanic White persons and single vs married/coupled individuals were less likely to report DSME receipt (both 0.76 [0.62-0.94]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ongoing national efforts addressing rural disparities in diabetes-related complications should target individuals most at risk for missing current diabetes educational programming and design appropriate interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rural-Urban Differences in Self-Reported Participation in Diabetes Self-Management Education.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Boswell, Jan Probst, Peiyin Hung, Laura Herbert, Elizabeth Crouch\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PHH.0000000000001928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Rural America faces a dual challenge with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (hereafter, diabetes) and diabetes-related mortality. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) can improve glucose control and reduce adverse effects of diabetes, but certified DSME programs remain disproportionately limited in rural counties than in urban counties.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study is to examine the proportion of urban and rural adults who report having received DSME using a nationwide, 29-state survey while considering the potential consequences of lower service availability.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Residence was defined as urban (metropolitan county) vs rural (non-metropolitan county). Logistic regression, incorporated survey weights, was used to determine the odds of having received DSME by residence.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>BRFSS is a nationally representative survey, and this study included participants from 29 states that were distributed throughout all regions of the United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The study sample consisted of 28,179 adults who reported having diabetes, lived in one of the states that administered the diabetes module in 2019, and answered all relevant questions.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The main outcome measure was whether a participant had ever received DSME. Participants were considered to have received DSME if they self-reported having ever taken a class on how to manage diabetes themselves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 54.5% of participants reported having received DSME; proportionately fewer rural residents (50.4%, ±1.1%) than urban residents (55.5%, ±1.0%) reported DSME. Rural disparities persisted after adjusting for demographic, enabling, and need factors (Adjusted Odds Ratio  = 0.79; CI, 0.71-0.89). By sociodemographic factors, Hispanic persons vs non-Hispanic White persons and single vs married/coupled individuals were less likely to report DSME receipt (both 0.76 [0.62-0.94]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ongoing national efforts addressing rural disparities in diabetes-related complications should target individuals most at risk for missing current diabetes educational programming and design appropriate interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47855,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001928\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001928","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国农村面临着糖尿病(以下简称糖尿病)发病率较高和糖尿病相关死亡率较高的双重挑战。糖尿病自我管理教育(DSME)可以改善血糖控制并减少糖尿病的不良影响,但与城市地区相比,农村地区经过认证的糖尿病自我管理教育项目仍然不成比例地有限:本研究的目的是通过一项全国 29 个州的调查,考察城市和农村成年人中报告接受过 DSME 的比例,同时考虑较低的服务可用性可能带来的后果:这项横断面研究使用了 2019 年行为风险因素监测系统 (BRFSS) 的数据。居住地被定义为城市(大都市县)与农村(非大都市县)。采用包含调查权重的逻辑回归来确定不同居住地接受 DSME 的几率:BRFSS 是一项具有全国代表性的调查,本研究的参与者来自 29 个州,分布在美国的各个地区:研究样本包括 28179 名报告患有糖尿病的成年人,他们居住在 2019 年实施糖尿病模块的其中一个州,并回答了所有相关问题:主要结果测量指标是参与者是否接受过DSME治疗。如果参与者自述曾参加过如何自我管理糖尿病的课程,则被视为接受过 DSME:总体而言,54.5%的参与者表示接受过DSME;农村居民(50.4%,±1.1%)报告接受过DSME的比例低于城市居民(55.5%,±1.0%)。在调整了人口统计学、有利因素和需求因素后,农村地区的差异依然存在(调整后的比值比 = 0.79;CI,0.71-0.89)。从社会人口因素来看,西班牙裔与非西班牙裔白人、单身与已婚/有伴侣的人报告接受DSME的可能性较低(均为0.76 [0.62-0.94]):国家正在努力解决农村地区糖尿病相关并发症的差异问题,应针对最有可能错过当前糖尿病教育计划的人群,设计适当的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rural-Urban Differences in Self-Reported Participation in Diabetes Self-Management Education.

Context: Rural America faces a dual challenge with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (hereafter, diabetes) and diabetes-related mortality. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) can improve glucose control and reduce adverse effects of diabetes, but certified DSME programs remain disproportionately limited in rural counties than in urban counties.

Objective: The goal of this study is to examine the proportion of urban and rural adults who report having received DSME using a nationwide, 29-state survey while considering the potential consequences of lower service availability.

Design: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Residence was defined as urban (metropolitan county) vs rural (non-metropolitan county). Logistic regression, incorporated survey weights, was used to determine the odds of having received DSME by residence.

Setting: BRFSS is a nationally representative survey, and this study included participants from 29 states that were distributed throughout all regions of the United States.

Participants: The study sample consisted of 28,179 adults who reported having diabetes, lived in one of the states that administered the diabetes module in 2019, and answered all relevant questions.

Main outcome measures: The main outcome measure was whether a participant had ever received DSME. Participants were considered to have received DSME if they self-reported having ever taken a class on how to manage diabetes themselves.

Results: Overall, 54.5% of participants reported having received DSME; proportionately fewer rural residents (50.4%, ±1.1%) than urban residents (55.5%, ±1.0%) reported DSME. Rural disparities persisted after adjusting for demographic, enabling, and need factors (Adjusted Odds Ratio  = 0.79; CI, 0.71-0.89). By sociodemographic factors, Hispanic persons vs non-Hispanic White persons and single vs married/coupled individuals were less likely to report DSME receipt (both 0.76 [0.62-0.94]).

Conclusions: Ongoing national efforts addressing rural disparities in diabetes-related complications should target individuals most at risk for missing current diabetes educational programming and design appropriate interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
287
期刊介绍: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice publishes articles which focus on evidence based public health practice and research. The journal is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed publication guided by a multidisciplinary editorial board of administrators, practitioners and scientists. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice publishes in a wide range of population health topics including research to practice; emergency preparedness; bioterrorism; infectious disease surveillance; environmental health; community health assessment, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, and academic-practice linkages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信