Context

Research on predictors of clinical outcomes usually focuses on the impact of individual patient factors, despite known relationships between neighborhood environment and health.

Objective

To determine whether US census information on where a patient resides is associated with diabetes development among patients with prediabetes.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of all 157,752 patients aged 18 years or older from Kaiser Permanente Northern California with laboratory-defined prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose, 100 mg/dL-125 mg/dL, and/or glycated hemoglobin, 5.7%-6.4%). We assessed whether census data on education, income, and percentage of households receiving benefits through the US Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was associated with diabetes development using logistic regression controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, blood glucose levels, and body mass index.

Main outcome measure

Progression to diabetes within 36 months.

Results

Patients were more likely to progress to diabetes if they lived in an area where less than 16% of adults had obtained a bachelor's degree or higher (odds ratio [OR] =1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.36), where median annual income was below $79,999 (OR = 1.16 95% CI = 1.03-1.31), or where SNAP benefits were received by 10% or more of households (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.1-1.4).

Conclusion

Area-level socioeconomic and food assistance data predict the development of diabetes, even after adjusting for traditional individual demographic and clinical factors. Clinical interventions should take these factors into account, and health care systems should consider addressing social needs and community resources as a path to improving health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes prevalence is twice as high among people with severe mental illness (SMI) when compared to the general population. Despite high prevalence, care outcomes are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare diabetes health outcomes received by people with and without comorbid SMI, and to understand demographic factors associated with poor diabetes control among those with SMI. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: 269,243 adults with diabetes MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included optimal glycemic control (A1c < 7) or poor diabetes control (A1c > 9) in 2014. Secondary outcomes included control of other cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking) and recommended diabetes monitoring. KEY RESULTS: Among this cohort, people with SMI (N = 4,399), compared to those without SMI (N = 264,844), were more likely to have optimal glycemic control, adjusting for various covariates (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.21-1.28, p < .001) and less likely to have poor control (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98, p = 0.012). Better blood pressure and lipid control was more prevalent among people with SMI when compared to those without SMI (aRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.05, p < .001; aRR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.05, p = 0.044, respectively). No differences were observed in recommended A1c or LDL testing, but people with SMI were more likely to have blood pressure checked (aRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03, p < .001) and less likely to receive retinopathy screening (aRR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91, p < .001) than those without SMI. Among people with diabetes and comorbid SMI, younger adults and Hispanics were more likely to have poor diabetes control. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with diabetes and comorbid SMI had better cardiometabolic control than people with diabetes who did not have SMI, despite lower rates of retinopathy screening. Among those with comorbid SMI, younger adults and Hispanics were more vulnerable to poor A1c control.

Background

Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, partly due to adverse metabolic effects of antipsychotic medications. In public health care settings, annual screening rates are 30%. We measured adherence to national diabetes screening guidelines for patients taking antipsychotic medications.

Objective

To estimate diabetes screening prevalence among patients with SMI within an integrated health care system, and to assess characteristics associated with lack of screening.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Participants

Antipsychotic-treated adults with SMI. We excluded participants with known diabetes.

Main measures

Primary outcome was screening via fasting glucose test or hemoglobin A1c during a 1-year period.

Key results

In 2014, 16,754 patients with SMI diagnoses were receiving antipsychotics. Seventy-four percent of these patients' providers ordered diabetes screening tests that year, but only 55% (9247/16,754) received screening. When the observation time frame was extended to 2 years, 73% (12,250/16,754) were screened. Adjusting for sex and race/ethnicity, young adults (aged 18-29 years) were less likely to receive screening than older age groups [adjusted RR (aRR) 1.23-1.57, p < 0.0001]. Compared to whites, screening was more common for Asians (aRR 1.141, 95% CI 1.089-1.195, p < 0.0001), less common for blacks (aRR 0.946, 95% CI 0.898-0.997, p < 0.0375), and no different for Hispanics (aRR 1.030, 95% CI 0.988-1.074, p = 0.165). Smokers were less likely to be screened than non-smokers (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p < 0.0008). Utilization of either mental health or primary care services increased the likelihood of screening.

Conclusions

While almost three-fourths of adults with SMI taking antipsychotic medications received a lab order for diabetes screening, only 55% received screening within a 12-month period. Young adults and smokers were less likely to be screened, despite their disproportionate metabolic risk. Future studies should assess the barriers and facilitators with regard to diabetes screening in this vulnerable population at the patient, provider, and system levels.

Background

Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, partly due to adverse metabolic effects of antipsychotic medications. In public health care settings, annual screening rates are 30%. We measured adherence to national diabetes screening guidelines for patients taking antipsychotic medications.

Objective

To estimate diabetes screening prevalence among patients with SMI within an integrated health care system, and to assess characteristics associated with lack of screening.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Participants

Antipsychotic-treated adults with SMI. We excluded participants with known diabetes.

Main measures

Primary outcome was screening via fasting glucose test or hemoglobin A1c during a 1-year period.

Key results

In 2014, 16,754 patients with SMI diagnoses were receiving antipsychotics. Seventy-four percent of these patients' providers ordered diabetes screening tests that year, but only 55% (9247/16,754) received screening. When the observation time frame was extended to 2 years, 73% (12,250/16,754) were screened. Adjusting for sex and race/ethnicity, young adults (aged 18-29 years) were less likely to receive screening than older age groups [adjusted RR (aRR) 1.23-1.57, p < 0.0001]. Compared to whites, screening was more common for Asians (aRR 1.141, 95% CI 1.089-1.195, p < 0.0001), less common for blacks (aRR 0.946, 95% CI 0.898-0.997, p < 0.0375), and no different for Hispanics (aRR 1.030, 95% CI 0.988-1.074, p = 0.165). Smokers were less likely to be screened than non-smokers (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p < 0.0008). Utilization of either mental health or primary care services increased the likelihood of screening.

Conclusions

While almost three-fourths of adults with SMI taking antipsychotic medications received a lab order for diabetes screening, only 55% received screening within a 12-month period. Young adults and smokers were less likely to be screened, despite their disproportionate metabolic risk. Future studies should assess the barriers and facilitators with regard to diabetes screening in this vulnerable population at the patient, provider, and system levels.

Background

Diabetes prevalence is twice as high among people with severe mental illness (SMI) when compared to the general population. Despite high prevalence, care outcomes are not well understood.

Objective

To compare diabetes health outcomes received by people with and without comorbid SMI, and to understand demographic factors associated with poor diabetes control among those with SMI.

Design

Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: 269,243 adults with diabetes MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included optimal glycemic control (A1c < 7) or poor diabetes control (A1c > 9) in 2014. Secondary outcomes included control of other cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking) and recommended diabetes monitoring.

Key results

Among this cohort, people with SMI (N = 4,399), compared to those without SMI (N = 264,844), were more likely to have optimal glycemic control, adjusting for various covariates (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.21-1.28, p < .001) and less likely to have poor control (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98, p = 0.012). Better blood pressure and lipid control was more prevalent among people with SMI when compared to those without SMI (aRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.05, p < .001; aRR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.05, p = 0.044, respectively). No differences were observed in recommended A1c or LDL testing, but people with SMI were more likely to have blood pressure checked (aRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03, p < .001) and less likely to receive retinopathy screening (aRR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91, p < .001) than those without SMI. Among people with diabetes and comorbid SMI, younger adults and Hispanics were more likely to have poor diabetes control.

Conclusions

Adults with diabetes and comorbid SMI had better cardiometabolic control than people with diabetes who did not have SMI, despite lower rates of retinopathy screening. Among those with comorbid SMI, younger adults and Hispanics were more vulnerable to poor A1c control.

Introduction

Smoking is a significant modifiable risk factor for mortality for persons with serious mental illness (SMI), who have a life expectancy 15-20 years shorter than the general population. Individuals with SMI and comorbid diabetes who are smokers face an even higher risk of cardiovascular complications and early death. Yet despite high rates of smoking among people with SMI, tobacco cessation interventions have not been broadly offered to this population.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records from 2014 in a large integrated care delivery system to examine whether use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among smokers with type 2 diabetes varies by serious mental illness (SMI) diagnosis. We analyzed smoking cessation medication prescription fills among adult smokers with diabetes, comparing those with SMI (N = 634) and without SMI (N = 18,021). Risk ratios were adjusted for age, gender, race, urban area type, and medical facility.

Results

Of the SMI group, 19.09% filled at least one smoking cessation prescription compared to 9.73% of the non-SMI group (adjusted risk ratio 1.80 [95% CI 1.52-2.13]; p < .001). For the SMI group, primary care providers wrote 80.24% of prescriptions, while psychiatrists wrote 8.81% of prescriptions.

Conclusions

These findings offer an example of a delivery system with higher uptake of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among people with SMI than without SMI, and highlight the opportunity to provide more smoking cessation interventions in mental health care settings.

Background

Mail order pharmacy (MOP) use has been linked to improved medication adherence and health outcomes among patients with diabetes. However, no large-scale intervention studies have assessed the effect of encouraging MOP use on medication adherence.

Objective

To assess an intervention to encourage MOP services to increase its use and medication adherence.

Design

Randomized encouragement trial.

Patients

63,012 diabetes patients from three health care systems: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Kaiser Permanente Hawaii (KPHI), and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) who were poorly adherent to at least one class of cardiometabolic medications and had not used MOP in the prior 12 months.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to receive either usual care (control arm) or outreach encouraging MOP use consisting of a mailed letter, secure email message, and automated telephone call outlining the potential benefits of MOP use (intervention arm). HPHC intervention patients received the letter only.

Measurements

We compared the percentages of patients that began using MOP and that became adherent to cardiometabolic medication classes during a 12-month follow-up period. We also conducted a race/ethnicity-stratified analysis.

Results

During follow-up, 10.6% of intervention patients began using MOP vs. 9.3% of controls (p < 0.01); the percent of cardiometabolic medication delivered via mail was 42.1% vs. 39.8% (p < 0.01). Metformin adherence improved in the intervention arm relative to control at the two KP sites (52% vs. 49%, p < 0.01). Stratified analyses suggested a significant positive effect of the intervention in White (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.22) and Asian (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.45) patients.

Conclusion

This pragmatic trial showed that simple outreach to encourage MOP modestly increased its use and improved adherence measured by refills to a key class of diabetes medications in some settings. Given its minimal cost, clinicians and health systems should consider outreach interventions to actively promote MOP use among diabetes patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02621476.