ArticleBMJ public health2024
Diabetes control in public assistance recipients and free/low-cost medical care program beneficiaries in Japan: a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The difference in type 2 diabetes care between the National Health Insurance beneficiaries and public assistance recipients in Japan: A retrospective cohort study based on claims data in a municipality.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous research has highlighted the association between socioeconomic factors and diabetes management. This study aimed to elucidate the blood glucose control status among individuals with low income (ie, recipients of public assistance (PARs) and free/low-cost medical care (FLCMC) programme beneficiaries) and to investigate the effects of public subsidies for medical expenses on treatment adherence among low-income patients with diabetes. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of medical records from 910 outpatients with diabetes who underwent pharmacological treatment for >90 days. Data on predictive variables, such as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level and control variables, including sex, age and insurance type, were obtained retrospectively. The HbA1c levels among public health insurance (PHI)-only beneficiaries, FLCMC programme beneficiaries and PARs were compared using logistic regression analysis. Results: The analysis included 874 individuals, among whom the majority were men (61.7%) and aged≥65 years (58.4%). Logistic regression analysis revealed that among individuals aged ˂65 years, the adjusted ORs for HbA1c levels above 9% were significantly higher in FLCMC programme beneficiaries (OR=5.37, 95% CI: 2.23 to 12.82) and PARs (OR=5.97, 95% CI: 2.91 to 12.74) than in PHI-only beneficiaries. Among patients aged ˂65 years with HbA1c levels above 7%, the adjusted OR was significantly higher in FLCMC programme beneficiaries (OR=3.82, 95% CI: 1.65 to 10.43) than in PHI-only beneficiaries. Additionally, the adjusted OR was significantly higher in FLCMC programme beneficiaries aged ˂65 years (OR=2.57, 95% CI: 1.02 to 7.44) than in PARs. Conclusions: This study highlights the predictive value of public assistance or the FLCMC programme for poor blood glucose control and suggests the inadequacy of current medical expense subsidies to eliminate health disparities in diabetes control.
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.