Purpose: To describe Lifestyle Coach perceptions of dyads (i.e., family members and/or friends) in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP). Design: Qualitative evaluation of cross-sectional survey responses. Setting: Online. Participants: Lifestyle Coaches (n=253) with experience teaching at least one in-person year-long NDPP cohort at a CDC-recognized organization. Measures: Survey included items on background and experience with dyadic approach, as well as open-ended items on the benefits and challenges observed when working with dyads in the NDPP. Analysis: Lifestyle Coach background and experience were analyzed descriptively in SPSS. Open-ended responses were content coded in ATLAS.ti using qualitative description, then grouped into categories. Results: Most Lifestyle Coaches (n=210; 83.0%) reported experience delivering the NDPP to dyads. Benefits of a dyadic approach included having a partner in lifestyle change, superior outcomes and increased engagement, and positive “ripple effects.” Challenges included difficult relationship dynamics, differences between dyad members, negative “ripple effects,” and logistics. Conclusion: Lifestyle Coaches described a number of benefits, as well as some challenges, with a dyadic approach to the NDPP. Given the concordance between close others in lifestyle and other risk factors for type 2 diabetes, utilizing a dyadic approach in the NDPP has the potential to increase engagement, improve outcomes, and extend the reach of the program.

Introduction: Strong evidence shows lifestyle change and weight loss stimulated by counseling improve glycemic control and lower comorbidities for patients with diabetes, but it is unclear whether diet or physical activity counseling for patients with diabetes in ambulatory settings has actually been responsive to this evidence. Methods: Data from the 2005–2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys were used to assess trends in provider-reported diet or exercise counseling during ambulatory care visits. The data were pooled and multivariate logistic regression models were built, adjusting for patient-, provider-, and practice-level characteristics to examine whether the provision of counseling varied by these characteristics. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to December 2018. Results: There were 42,234 adults with diabetes and 272,094 adults without diabetes. The proportions of patients with provider-reported Type 2 diabetes who received any diet or exercise counseling were no different over time: 30% in 2005 (95% CI=25%, 35%) and 25% in 2015 (95% CI=18%, 31%). Lower proportions of those without diabetes received any counseling: 17% in 2005 (95% CI=14%, 19%) and 15% in 2015 (95% CI=11%, 18%). Adjusted models showed Hispanic patients had a higher likelihood of receiving diet or exercise counseling, compared with whites (OR=1.38, 95% CI=1.09, 1.75). Those aged 30–49 years were more likely to receive diet or exercise counseling, compared with those aged >75 years (OR=1.51, 95% CI=1.27, 1.80). Compared with rural areas and other providers, visits in a metropolitan area (OR=1.27, 95% CI=1.09, 1.47) or with an advanced practice provider (OR=1.66, 95% CI=1.00, 2.75) had higher likelihood of any diet or exercise counseling delivery. Conclusions: Less than 30% of Americans with diabetes receive diet or exercise counseling in ambulatory visits and this proportion has not changed significantly in a decade. Future interventions should focus on addressing this gap in counseling.

Background: Diabetes and hypertension disparities are pronounced among South Asians. There is regional variation in the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension in the US, but it is unknown whether there is variation among South Asians living in the US. The objective of this study was to compare the burden of diabetes and hypertension between South Asian patients receiving care in the health systems of two US cities. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses were performed using electronic health records (EHR) for 90,137 South Asians receiving care at New York University Langone in New York City (NYC) and 28,868 South Asians receiving care at Emory University (Atlanta). Diabetes was defined as having 2 + encounters with a diagnosis of diabetes, having a diabetes medication prescribed (excluding Acarbose/Metformin), or having 2 + abnormal A1C levels (≥ 6.5%) and 1 + encounter with a diagnosis of diabetes. Hypertension was defined as having 3 + BP readings of systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg, 2 + encounters with a diagnosis of hypertension, or having an anti-hypertensive medication prescribed. Results: Among South Asian patients at these two large, private health systems, age-adjusted diabetes burden was 10.7% in NYC compared to 6.7% in Atlanta. Age-adjusted hypertension burden was 20.9% in NYC compared to 24.7% in Atlanta. In Atlanta, 75.6% of those with diabetes had comorbid hypertension compared to 46.2% in NYC. Conclusions: These findings suggest differences by region and sex in diabetes and hypertension risk. Additionally, these results call for better characterization of race/ethnicity in EHRs to identify ethnic subgroup variation, as well as intervention studies to reduce lifestyle exposures that underlie the elevated risk for type 2 diabetes and hypertension development in South Asians.

The number of undocumented immigrants (UIs) varies worldwide, and most reside in the United States. With more than 12 million UIs in the United States, addressing the health care needs of this population presents unique challenges and opportunities. Most UIs are uninsured and rely on the safety-net health system for their care. Because of young age, this population is often considered to be healthier than the overall US population, but they have specific health conditions and risks. Adequate coverage is lacking; however, there are examples of how to better address the health care needs of UIs. © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The number of undocumented immigrants (UIs) varies worldwide, and most reside in the United States. With more than 12 million UIs in the United States, addressing the health care needs of this population presents unique challenges and opportunities. Most UIs are uninsured and rely on the safety-net health system for their care. Because of young age, this population is often considered to be healthier than the overall US population, but they have specific health conditions and risks. Adequate coverage is lacking; however, there are examples of how to better address the health care needs of UIs.

OBJECTIVE To analyze national and state-specific trends in diabetes-related hospital admissions and determine whether disparities in rates of admission exist between demographic groups and geographically dispersed states. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted serial cross-sectional analyses of the National Inpatient Sample (2008, 2011, 2014, and 2016) and State Inpatient Databases for Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Utah, and Vermont for 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2016/2017 among adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes–related ICD codes (ICD-9 [250.XX] or ICD-10 [E10.XXX, E11.XXX, and E13.XXX]. We measured hospitalization rates for people with diabetes (all-cause hos-pitalizations) and for admissions with a primary diagnosis of diabetes or diabetes-related complications (diabetes-specific hospitalizations) per 10,000 people per year. RESULTS Nationally, all-cause and diabetes-specific hospitalizations declined by 3.1% (95% CI-5.5,-0.7) and 19.1% (95% CI-21.6,-16.6), respectively, over 2008 to 2016. The analysis of individual states showed that diabetes-specific admissions in individuals ≥65 years old declined during this time (16.3–48.8% decrease) but increased among patients 18–29 years old (10.5–81.5% increase) and that rural diabetes-specific admissions decreased in just over half of the included states (15.2–69.2% decrease). There were no differences in changes in admission rates among different racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS Overall, rates of diabetes-related hospitalizations decreased over 2008 to 2016/ 2017, but there were large state-level differences across subgroups of patients. The rise in diabetes hospitalizations among young adults is a cause for concern. These state-and subpopulation-level differences highlight the need for state-level policies and interventions to address disparities in diabetes health care use.

Importance: Consistent medication use is critical for diabetes management. Population surveillance of consistency of medication use may identify opportunities to improve diabetes care. Objective: To evaluate trends in longitudinal use of glucose-, blood pressure-, and lipid-lowering medications by adults with diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study assessed trends in longitudinal use of glucose-, blood pressure-, and lipid-lowering medications by adults with diagnosed diabetes participating in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which allows serial cross-sections and 2-year longitudinal follow-up, between the 2005 to 2006 panel and 2018 to 2019 panel. Population-weighted, nationally representative estimates for the US were reported. Included individuals were adult MEPS participants with diagnosed diabetes during both years (ie, during 2005 and 2006 or during 2018 and 2019) who participated in all survey rounds. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal use over the 2 years was categorized as continued use (at least 1 fill per year), no use, inconsistent use, and new use by medication type (glucose-, blood pressure-, and lipid-lowering medications). New medications were defined as prescription fills for a medication type first prescribed and filled in year 2 of MEPS participation. Results: A total of 15 237 participants with diabetes (7222 individuals aged 45-64 years [47.4%]; 8258 [54.2%] female participants; 3851 Latino [25.3%]; 3619 non-Latino Black (23.8%), and 6487 non-Latino White [42.6%]) were included in the analytical sample. A mean of 19.5% (95% CI, 18.6%-20.3%), 17.1% (95% CI, 16.2%-18.1%), and 43.3% (95% CI, 42.2%-44.3%) of participants did not maintain continuity in use of glucose-, blood pressure-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, during both years of follow-up. The proportion of participants who continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years trended down from 84.5% (95% CI, 81.8%-87.3%) in 2005 to 2006 to 77.4% (95% CI, 74.8%-80.1%) in 2018 to 2019; this decrease coincided with rate increases in inconsistent use (3.3% [95% CI, 1.9%-4.7%] in 2005-2006 to 7.1% [95% CI, 5.6%-8.6%] in 2018-2019) and no use (8.1% [95% CI, 6.0%-10.1%] in 2005-2006 to 12.9% [95% CI, 10.9%-14.9%] in 2018-2019). Inconsistent use of blood pressure-lowering medications trended upward from 3.9% (95% CI, 1.8%-6.0%) in 2005 to 2006 to 9.0% (95% CI, 7.0%-11.0%) in 2016 to 2017. Inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication trended up to a high of 9.9% (95% CI, 7.0%-12.7%) in 2017 to 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that a mean of 19.5% of participants did not maintain continuity in use of glucose-lowering medication, with recent decreases, while a mean of 17.1% and 43.2% of participants did not maintain continuity of use of blood pressure- or lipid-lowering medications, respectively.

The global diabetes burden is staggering, and prevention efforts are needed to reduce the impact on individuals and populations. There is strong evidence from efficacy trials showing that lifestyle interventions promoting increased physical activity, improvements in diet, and/or weight loss significantly reduce diabetes incidence and improve cardiometabolic risk factors. Implementation research assessing the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of delivering these proven programs at the community level has shown success, but more research is needed to overcome barriers to implementation in different settings globally. New avenues of research should be considered to combat this public health issue.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to pivot to offering services via telehealth; however, it is unclear which patients (users of care) are equipped to use digital health. This is especially pertinent for adults managing chronic diseases, such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, which require regular follow-up, medication management, and self-monitoring. Objective: The aim of this study is to measure the trends and assess factors affecting health information technology (HIT) use among members of the US population with and without cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: We used serial cross-sectional data from the National Health Interview Survey for the years 2012-2018 to assess trends in HIT use among adults, stratified by age and cardiovascular risk factor status. We developed multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race, insurance status, marital status, geographic region, and perceived health status to assess the likelihood of HIT use among patients with and without cardiovascular disease risk factors. Results: A total of 14,304 (44.6%) and 14,644 (58.7%) participants reported using HIT in 2012 and 2018, respectively. When comparing the rates of HIT use for the years 2012 and 2018, among participants without cardiovascular risk factors, the HIT use proportion increased from 51.1% to 65.8%; among those with one risk factor, it increased from 43.9% to 59%; and among those with more than one risk factor, it increased from 41.3% to 54.7%. Increasing trends in HIT use were highest among adults aged >65 years (annual percentage change [APC] 8.3%), who had more than one cardiovascular risk factor (APC 5%) and among those who did not graduate from high school (APC 8.8%). Likelihood of HIT use was significantly higher in individuals who were younger, female, and non-Hispanic White; had higher education and income; were married; and reported very good or excellent health status. In 2018, college graduates were 7.18 (95% CI 5.86-8.79), 6.25 (95% CI 5.02-7.78), or 7.80 (95% CI 5.87-10.36) times more likely to use HIT compared to adults without high school education among people with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, one cardiovascular risk factor, or no cardiovascular risk factors, respectively. Conclusions: Over 2012-2018, HIT use increased nationally, with greater use noted among younger and higher educated US adults. Targeted strategies are needed to engage wider age, racial, education, and socioeconomic groups by lowering barriers to HIT access and use.

Aims: To evaluate whether and what combinations of diabetes quality metrics were achieved in a multicentre trial in South Asia evaluating a multicomponent quality improvement intervention that included non-physician care coordinators to promote adherence and clinical decision-support software to enhance physician practices, in comparision with usual care. Methods: Using data from the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) trial, we evaluated the proportions of trial participants achieving specific and combinations of five diabetes care targets (HbA1c<53 mmol/mol [7%], blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, LDL cholesterol <2.6 mmol/L, non-smoking status, and aspirin use). Additionally, we examined the proportions of participants achieving the following risk factor improvements from baseline: ≥11-mmol/mol (1%) reduction in HbA1c, ≥10-mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure, and/or ≥0.26-mmol/l reduction in LDL cholesterol. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in the intervention and usual care arms. Overall, 12.3%, 29.4%, 36.5%, 19.5% and 2.2% of participants in the intervention group and 16.2%, 38.3%, 31.6%, 11.3% and 0.8% of participants in the usual care group achieved any one, two, three, four or five targets, respectively. We noted sizeable improvements in HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol, and found that participants in the intervention group were twice as likely to achieve improvements in all three indices at 12 months that were sustained over 28 months of the study [relative risk 2.1 (95% CI 1.5,2.8) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.5,2.3), respectively]. Conclusions: The intervention was associated with significantly higher achievement of and greater improvements in composite diabetes quality care goals. However, among these higher-risk participants, very small proportions achieved the complete group of targets, which suggests that achievement of multiple quality-of-care goals is challenging and that other methods may be needed in closing care gaps.