Observational studyDiabetes care2022
Diabetes Screening and Monitoring Among Older Mexican-Origin Populations in the U.S.
Observational study in Diabetes care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Nativity and Preventive Mammography Among Latina Community Health Center Patients.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Article
- Primary Care, Health Services, and the Latino Mortality Paradox.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2025Article
- Association of neighbourhood walkability and haemoglobin A1c levels among Latino and non-Hispanic White patients with diabetes.Family practice · 2024Article
- Diabetes Monitoring in Foreign-Born and US-Born Latino Adults in US Community Health Centers.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the study is to examine diabetes screening and monitoring among Latino individuals as compared with non-Latino White individuals and to better understand how we can use neighborhood data to address diabetes care inequities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThis is a retrospective observational study linked with neighborhood-level Latino subgroup data obtained from the American Community Survey. We used generalized estimating equation negative binomial and logistic regression models adjusted for patient-level covariates to compare annual rates of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) monitoring for those with diabetes and odds of HbA1c screening for those without diabetes by ethnicity and among Latinos living in neighborhoods with low (0.0-22.0%), medium (22.0-55.7%), and high (55.7-98.0%) population percent of Mexican origin.
resultsLatino individuals with diabetes had 18% higher rates of HbA1c testing than non-Latino White individuals with diabetes (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 1.18 [95% CI 1.07-1.29]), and Latinos without diabetes had 25% higher odds of screening (adjusted odds ratio 1.25 [95% CI 1.15-1.36]) than non-Latino White individuals without diabetes. In the analyses in which neighborhood-level percent Mexican population was the main independent variable, all Latinos without diabetes had higher odds of HbA1c screening compared with non-Latino White individuals, yet only those living in low percent Mexican-origin neighborhoods had increased monitoring rates (aRR 1.31 [95% CI 1.15-1.49]).
conclusionsThese findings reveal novel variation in health care utilization according to Latino subgroup neighborhood characteristics and could inform the delivery of diabetes care for a growing and increasingly diverse Latino patient population. Clinicians and researchers whose work focuses on diabetes care should take steps to improve equity in diabetes and prevent inequity in treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.