ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Impact of social disadvantage on clinical and health care use indicators in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps in Ontario, Canada.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open-source automated insulin delivery shows comparable glycemic outcomes to a commercial hybrid closed-loop system in real-world type 1 pediatric diabetes care: a retrospective cohort study from British Columbia, Canada.Pediatric diabetes · 2026Article
- Impact of social disadvantage on clinical and health care use indicators in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps in Ontario, Canada.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial disadvantage is associated with worse diabetes outcomes among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Insulin pump therapy in the context of a publicly funded programme may mitigate the effects of social disadvantage on outcomes of diabetes. We investigated the effects of social disadvantage on health care use indicators and outcomes among pump users.
methodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Adults with T1D who initiated pump therapy between 1 April 2012 and 30 March 2020 were included. Multivariable Poisson and linear regressions were used to evaluate associations between social disadvantage (defined by the material resources quintile of the Ontario marginalization index) and the following outcomes: health care use indicators (number of HbA1c tests and endocrinologist outpatient visits per year), and clinical outcomes (HbA1c and hospitalization/emergency department visits for hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia). All models were adjusted for age, sex, diabetes duration, baseline HbA1c, immigrant status, rural residence, diabetes physician specialty, clinic type and were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to account for clustering by region.
resultsAmong 15 755 adults with T1D who initiated pump therapy, 14% were from the most socially disadvantaged quintile. There were no associations between social disadvantage and health care use indicators. Individuals with greater disadvantage had poorer diabetes outcomes, including 0.12% higher HbA1c (95% CI 0.06-0.17) and a higher rate for hospitalization/emergency department visits for hyperglycaemia [adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 2.07 (95% CI 1.64-2.62)] and hypoglycaemia [aRR 1.76 (95% CI 1.41-2.19)] comparing the most versus least socially disadvantaged quintiles.
conclusionsSocial disadvantage was associated with worse clinical outcomes but not health care use indicators among pump users with T1D in Ontario. Social disadvantage remains a risk factor for poorer clinical outcomes among pump users, but pump use may sustain greater engagement with the diabetes care team.
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.