Observational studyJournal of diabetes investigation2026
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.
Observational study in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionWe examined the differences in diabetes care between public assistance recipients (PARs), exempt from medical costs and guaranteed a minimum income, and the National Health Insurance (NHI) beneficiaries, covering non-employed and self-employed individuals with some cost sharing in Japan. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis observational study used claims data from a Japanese municipality (April 2017-March 2022) to identify individuals aged 20-68 with type 2 diabetes on antidiabetic medications. We analyzed care processes annually and cross-sectionally, focusing on tests, medications, and medical costs, and followed health outcomes (hypoglycemia and hospitalization) monthly and longitudinally. Multivariable Poisson regression models estimate the risk ratios for binary care processes, and a gamma regression model analyzes medical costs as continuous variables. Health outcome incidence rate ratios were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression, with the observation period as an offset.
resultsWe included cross-sectional data from 11,385, 11,566, and 9,943 people (2018-2020) and longitudinal data from 18,655 individuals. In the analysis considering the whole periods, PARs were more likely to receive annual eye examinations (adjusted risk ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.22), use sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (1.22, 1.13-1.31), and use glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (1.63, 1.41-1.90). The total (1.16, 1.09-1.23) and outpatient medical costs (1.31, 1.24-1.38) were higher, whereas the inpatient costs (0.85, 0.77-0.94) were lower for PARs. Hypoglycemia incidence was also higher (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.21, 95% CI 1.38-3.54).
conclusionsPublic assistance might improve the diabetes care process, but not fully health outcomes. These findings suggest additional supports for PARs and further research for NHI beneficiaries in poverty.
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.