ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2025
Disparities in technology utilization among youth with type 1 diabetes across diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Outcomes for Black Adults with Diabetes: The Power of Peer Support in the Multidisciplinary Care Team.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Glycemic Control in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: From Challenges to Innovation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes in women of childbearing age, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated disparities in the utilization of diabetes technology among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) based on race and socioeconomic status (SES). Few studies have examined these differences on a national scale or among youth with commercial health insurance.
aimTo investigate differences in the fill rates of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among commercially insured children with T1D across diverse racial and SES groups.
methodsUsing medical and pharmacy claims included in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, we calculated the proportion of youth <18 years with T1D who had a fill for an insulin pump or a CGM, overall and stratified by race/ethnicity and annual household income, between 2011 and 2021.
resultsAmong 13,246 youth with T1D, 36.1% had CGM and 30.9% had pump fills. White youth had higher CGM and pump fills than black (CGMs: 35.8% vs 22.5%; pumps: 31.9% vs 21.2%, p<0.001) and Hispanic (CGMs: 35.8% vs 32.6%, p=0.047; pumps: 31.9% vs 25.0%, p<0.001). Youth from households with income <US$40,000 had lower CGM and pump fills than those with income ≥US$200,000 (CGM 25.4% vs 43.8%; pumps: 22.4% vs 38.8%, p<0.001). Within similar incomes <US$40,000, black youth had fewer CGM and pump fills than white youth (CGM: 15.2% vs 27.9%, p=0.006; pumps: 12.9% vs 25.5%, p=0.004). This racial difference disappeared with income ≥US$200,000 (CGMs: 47.5% for black vs 43.1% for white; pumps: 45.9% for black vs 38.3% for white, p=0.45 and p=0.57, respectively).
conclusionsIn a cohort of commercially insured youth with T1D, both race and income are important factors that can independently influence the use of diabetes technology. Racial disparities decrease with higher income and disappear at incomes ≥US$200,000. Black youth with income <US$40,000 are at the highest exclusion risk from essential technologies. Greater effort is needed at both the system and individual levels to mitigate these disparities.
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.