Improvements in Diabetes Processes of Care and Intermediate Outcomes: United States, 1988–2002FREE
Publication: Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 144, Number 7
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
Abstract
Background:
Progress of diabetes care is a subject of public health concern.
Objective:
To assess changes in quality of diabetes care in the United States by using standardized measures.
Design:
National population-based, serial cross-sectional surveys.
Setting:
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988–1994 and 1999–2002) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (1995 and 2002).
Participants:
Survey participants 18 to 75 years of age who reported a diagnosis of diabetes.
Measurements:
Glycemic control, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, annual cholesterol level monitoring, and annual foot and dilated eye examination, as defined by the National Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance measures.
Results:
In the past decade, the proportion of persons with diabetes with poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c > 9%) showed a nonstatistically significant decrease of 3.9% (95% CI, −10.4% to 2.5%), while the proportion of persons with fair or good lipid control (LDL cholesterol level < 3.4 mmol/L [<130 mg/dL]) had a statistically significant increase of 21.9% (CI, 12.4% to 31.3%). Mean LDL cholesterol level decreased by 0.5 mmol/L (18.8 mg/dL). Although mean hemoglobin A1c did not change, the proportion of persons with hemoglobin A1c of 6% to 8% increased from 34.2% to 47.0%. The blood pressure distribution did not change. Annual lipid testing, dilated eye examination, and foot examination increased by 8.3% (CI, 4.0% to 12.7%), 4.5% (CI, 0.5% to 8.5%), and 3.8% (CI, −0.1% to 7.7%), respectively. The proportion of persons reporting annual influenza vaccination and aspirin use improved by 6.8 percentage points (CI, 2.9 percentage points to 10.7 percentage points) and 13.1 percentage points (CI, 5.4 percentage points to 20.7 percentage points), respectively.
Limitations:
Data are self-reported, and the surveys do not have all National Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance indicators.
Conclusion:
Diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes have improved nationally in the past decade. But 2 in 5 persons with diabetes still have poor LDL cholesterol control, 1 in 3 persons still has poor blood pressure control, and 1 in 5 persons still has poor glycemic control.
Context
•
As the target of many quality improvement programs, positive change in diabetes care is a good marker for progress toward better health care.
Content
•
The authors analyzed measures of diabetes care from national population-based surveys that were conducted between 1988 and 2002. Improvements occurred in the proportion of patients with hemoglobin A1c between 6% and 8%, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels less than 3.4 mmol/L (<130 mg/dL), annual influenza vaccination, and aspirin use. Blood pressure did not change. Substantial proportions of patients still had poor control of LDL cholesterol levels, glycemia, and blood pressure.
Implications
•
Despite some progress, population-based measurements show that care for many Americans with diabetes falls far short of targets.
—The Editors
Diabetes currently affects 20.8 million people in the United States (1), and that number is projected to reach 39 million by the year 2050 (2). If current trends continue, 1 in 3 Americans will develop diabetes sometime in his or her lifetime, and those with diabetes will lose, on average, 10 to 15 life-years (3). In 2002, diabetes cost the nation an estimated $132 billion in direct and indirect costs (4). There is, however, a growing array of effective and cost-effective treatments to help prevent or delay diabetes complications and also diabetes itself (5-17).
Diabetes care has been suboptimal and varied in the United States (18-21). The National Diabetes Quality Improvement Project, founded in 1997, developed a comprehensive set of measures of diabetes quality of care (22). These measures have been incorporated into the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, the American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program, the American Medical Association Diabetes Measures Group, the Veterans Administration performance monitoring program, and other activities. The Diabetes Quality Improvement Project partners now continue their work as a coalition of 13 influential private and public national organizations called the National Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance. The Alliance develops, maintains, and promotes the use of an updated standardized measurement set (the Alliance measures) for quality of diabetes care (23).
We previously established a national benchmark for diabetes quality of care in the United States for the years 1988 to 1995 by using the standard measurements recommended by the Diabetes Quality Improvement Project (18). On the basis of nationally representative data collected in 1999 to 2002, we report the changes in the quality of diabetes care from the 1990s to 2000s by using the standardized Alliance measures for both time periods.
Methods
Surveys
We used data from 2 federally funded, nationally representative surveys: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994 (NHANES III) and 1999–2002 (NHANES 1999–2002), and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1995 (BRFSS 1995) and 2002 (BRFSS 2002). As previously explained (18), we used both BRFSS and NHANES to obtain data on all the process and intermediate outcome measures needed for the analysis. In our report, we refer to NHANES III and BRFSS 1995 as “baseline surveys” and NHANES 1999–2002 and BRFSS 2002 as “recent surveys.” We analyzed data from each survey separately. Table 1 presents the indicators used and their respective data source.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
The NHANES consists of nationally representative samples of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Samples were obtained by using a stratified multistage probability design with planned oversampling of older and minority groups. Household interviews were conducted to ascertain sociodemographic characteristics and medical and family history. After the household interview, clinical examinations were conducted at a mobile examination center.
Detailed descriptions of the design and data collection of each survey have been published elsewhere (24-27). Data from NHANES were self-reported (demographic characteristics and clinical variables) or were obtained during the clinical examination (hemoglobin A1c, cholesterol level, triglycerides level, and blood pressure level). Hemoglobin A1c measurements were standardized to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Cholesterol levels were standardized by using the criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Lipid Standardization Program II. For persons who fasted for more than 8 hours and had triglyceride levels less than 4.5 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), the Friedewald equation was applied to calculate low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level. We log-transformed triglyceride levels because data were not normally distributed. We used the average of each person's blood pressure readings that were taken in the seated position during the clinical examination. Because we did not have data on annual testing for microalbuminuria, we assessed the absence of microalbuminuria, defined as albumin-to-creatinine ratio greater than 30 µg/mg in spot urine collection (28). We analyzed the data for all indicators regardless of respective treatment status.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
The BRFSS is an ongoing random-digit telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. adult population in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Detailed descriptions of the design and data collection of the BRFSS have been published elsewhere (29). We used the diabetes-specific module that contains questions on clinical and preventive care practices to collect information from the participants with diabetes.
Participants
We included adults 18 to 75 years of age who reported a previous diagnosis of diabetes by a health care professional. We excluded women with gestational diabetes. We analyzed data from 1024 participants in NHANES III and 750 participants in NHANES 1999–2002 who selfreported a diagnosis of diabetes and who completed the clinical examination. We analyzed data from 3065 persons in BRFSS 1995 and 13 078 persons in BRFSS 2002 who identified themselves as having diabetes. Participants reporting diabetes in all surveys were similar in age, sex, education, smoking, and insurance status at each point of time. Among participants of the recent surveys compared with those of the baseline surveys, the proportion of women and non-Hispanic white persons was lower and the proportion of participants with more than a high school education and an annual household income of $20 000 or more was higher (Table 2). The proportion of people with diabetes who use insulin was also lower in the recent surveys but was statistically significant only in BRFSS 2002.
Performance Measurement Set
We assessed the quality of diabetes care by using the Alliance measurement set (22) (Table 1). We used the Alliance measures of diabetes care wherever data were available, and we also examined additional measures that may be indicators of quality care in the future: pneumococcal vaccination, diabetes education, annual dental examination, and self-monitoring of blood glucose level. The BRFSS did not have a question about smoking counseling. We, therefore, used the proportion of smokers who tried to quit smoking. Questions about aspirin use were asked only every other year, so we used data from BRFSS 1996 for this variable.
Statistical Analysis
We conducted statistical analyses by using SAS for Windows software, version 7.0 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina), for data management. We used SUDAAN software (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) to obtain point estimates and SEs based on sampling weights to produce national estimates accounting for the complex survey design. We used Taylor series linearization for variance estimation. We computed the percentage of respondents who reported receipt of each measure. We examined the diabetes care measures by age, sex, race or ethnicity, education, insulin use, and health insurance status because our previous analysis had variations by these factors (18). However, insulin users were not asked to fast; hence, we did not examine LDL levels by insulin use. We used multiple logistic regression and predictive margins to estimate the probability of receiving or meeting the care measure after controlling for all known potential confounders. Predictive margins are a type of direct standardization, where the predicted values from the logistic regression models are averaged over the covariate distribution in the population (30). This statistic has several advantages over the odds ratio: It is not influenced if the outcome is not rare; a comparison group is not required; and it provides a measure of absolute difference rather than relative difference. We included an interaction term between time and each measure in the models to allow estimation of the probability for each period. To assess the difference in the percentage change between the 2 comparison groups, we tested the interaction term of each demographic characteristic and clinical variable (age, sex, race or ethnicity, education, insulin use, and health insurance status) with time.
Role of the Funding Source
No funding was received for this study.
Results
Half of the quality care measures that we analyzed improved between the baseline and recent surveys, and the only measure that worsened was the proportion of participants with hemoglobin A1c < 6%. We observed absolute increases for LDL levels less than 3.4 mmol/L (<130 mg/dL) (22 percentage points), annual lipid profile (8 percentage points), eye examination (5 percentage points), foot examination (4 percentage points), influenza vaccination (7 percentage points), and aspirin use (13 percentage points) (Table 3). Changes in proportion of persons who have hemoglobin A1c greater than 9%, who are smokers, and who have blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg were not statistically significant. Although the prevalence of smokers showed little change, the percentage of smokers who tried to stop smoking increased by 19 percentage points. Of the other indicators, the proportion of people who received pneumococcal vaccine increased by 16 percentage points and those who self-monitored blood glucose level at least once daily increased by 17 percentage points, but annual dental examination did not change (Table 3). In the recent surveys, about 55% of participants reported having diabetes education. These data were not available in the baseline surveys.
While the overall mean hemoglobin A1c levels did not change from baseline to recent surveys, we found that the proportion of people with diabetes with hemoglobin A1c of 6% to 8% increased from 34.2% to 47.0% (Table 4). Moreover, only 42.3% of adults in NHANES 1999–2002 had hemoglobin A1c levels at the American Diabetes Association goal of less than 7%, and 14% had hemoglobin A1c 10% or more. The proportion of people with hemoglobin A1c less than 6% decreased significantly between the 2 timelines (23.4% vs. 16.4%).
The mean LDL cholesterol level decreased from 3.6 mmol/L (138 mg/dL) at baseline to 3.1 mmol/L (119 mg/dL) in the recent surveys. About 42% of participants in the baseline surveys and about 64% of participants in the recent surveys had LDL cholesterol levels less than 3.4 mmol/L (<130 mg/dL). The distribution of LDL cholesterol level has, thus, shifted to the left. The other lipid distributions (total cholesterol, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein levels) had also shifted slightly to the left, with higher percentages of persons meeting the recommended levels (Table 4).
The mean systolic blood pressure did not change between the 2 timelines. In fact, we found no change in the percentage of participants with controlled blood pressure (blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg) from the baseline surveys (67.6%) to the recent surveys (68.0%). Approximately 20% of participants had a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg to 159 mm Hg and about 7% of participants had a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg to 179 mm Hg in the baseline and recent surveys.
Table 5 shows the changes among the demographic groups. In general, most comparison groups improved between baseline and follow-up time. However, the percentage change differed between demographic and clinical characteristic subgroups. For example, the proportion of men with flu vaccine and aspirin use improved statistically significantly more than that of women. Those with less than a high school education had better improvement in flu vaccination but not in aspirin use compared with those with more than a high school education. People with health insurance improved aspirin use more than those without health insurance. We did not observe any variation in rate of improvement among the different age groups and among the different race or ethnic groups.
Discussion
On the basis of nationally representative data, we have found encouraging improvements over the past decade in several processes and some intermediate outcomes of diabetes quality of care in the United States. Although the level of care continues to fall short of what is recommended, annual lipid testing, dilated eye and foot examinations, self-monitoring of blood glucose level, and adoption of aspirin use and pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations have sizeably improved. Impressive improvements in lipid control and some improvement in glycemic control have occurred, but blood pressure control has not improved.
Our findings are consistent with the results reported in specific populations and health care systems, such as the Veterans Health Administration (31), Indian Health Service (32), managed care organizations (33), and Medicare (34). Some of the most impressive improvements in diabetes and other chronic disease quality of care have happened in the Veterans Health Administration, where quality of diabetes care seems to be better than that of similar commercial managed care (35, 36).
Recent reports, using national data, also showed improvement in cardiovascular disease risk factors among people with diabetes between NHANES III and NHANES 1999–2000 (37, 38). Our analysis is unique because we used more comprehensive national data; assessed changes over a decade; and most important, used a standardized set developed by the Alliance of quality-of-care processes and intermediate outcome measures. We have also included additional futuristic measures of quality of care.
Major randomized, controlled trials suggest that much of the burden of diabetes is amenable to clinical and public health interventions (5-14). Results from major clinical trials in the period between the baseline and recent surveys confirm the benefits of glycemic control, blood pressure control, and lipid control. Microvascular complications would be reduced by 30% by reducing hemoglobin A1c by 1% (6, 7). A 10-mm reduction in blood pressure would reduce macrovascular and microvascular complications and the risk for death by 35% (7, 8). Good lipid control can reduce the risk for coronary heart disease by 25% to 55% and for death by 43% (9). Thus, the improvements in the quality of care, while not yet ideal or complete, should translate into a substantial effect on the health status of people with diabetes. Of some concern is the lack of improvement in blood pressure control, which has been shown to be a highly cost-effective treatment in the United States (39).
In our earlier report, we included some important measures to the original Diabetes Quality Improvement Project measurement set (18). Several of these measures have been adopted by the new modified Alliance measures, and others are being assessed for inclusion. The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommend a thorough assessment of tobacco use and the implementation of smoking cessation guidelines in the management of diabetes. They also recommend aspirin use for the secondary prevention of vascular events and as primary prevention for high-risk groups with diabetes (40-42). The Alliance included smoking cessation and aspirin use in 2003 as new quality improvement and public reporting measures because of these recommendations (23).
As science advances, several more new measures may be considered for inclusion in future versions of the Alliance measurement set. Several reports have demonstrated the association between diabetes and periodontal disease and missing teeth (43, 44). Conversely, these oral health problems can complicate overall diabetes management and increase the risk for poor glycemic control (45). We did not find any change in the proportion of people with diabetes who had had an annual dental examination between the baseline and recent surveys. Furthermore, clinical trials from middle-age and older adults with diabetes suggest that diabetes management education can improve glycemic control (46). Consequently, diabetes management education may be a candidate measure for a future Alliance measurement set. Some early evidence suggest that lowering triglyceride levels in people with diabetes may reduce cardiovascular disease (47), and other trials testing this hypothesis are under way (48). We found modest improvements in triglyceride levels, which may be related to improvements in glycemic control. With strong evidence that diabetes may be prevented or delayed among high-risk people (5), future measures of diabetes quality of care might include indicators of delivery of prevention (for example, weight management and physical activity promotion) for people with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose (pre-diabetes).
Although the improvements in implementing processes of care have been impressive, the changes in intermediate outcomes (for example, blood pressure or hemoglobin A1c) are less so. These findings are consistent with those of other recent reports (18, 34, 49). These data indicate the need for continued efforts to improve intermediate outcomes and have several implications for the future focus of quality improvement. For example, is it time to develop the next generation of diabetes quality-of-care indicators that reflect intensity of treatment (for example, proportion of people receiving various doses of statins, proportion of people receiving 1 or more antihypertensive drugs or hypoglycemic treatments, and proportion of people receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotesin-receptor blockers)? Should quality-of-care indicators also specifically target people achieving poor intermediate outcomes (for example, poor control of glycemia, lipid levels, or blood pressure)? Is it enough to measure the use of dilated eye examination, or should the next generation of quality indicators also assess the proportion of treatable diabetic eye diseases that are detected, followed up, and treated (50)?
Our study is subject to the limitations inherent in any self-reported data, such as recall bias. However, the self-reported diabetes question and most other BRFSS questions have been validated (51-53). Many studies have shown that the percentages of a performance measure obtained from member surveys are almost always higher, sometimes substantially higher, than the percentages based on medical record abstract or administrative data (54). Yet, the percentages of almost all the measures were suboptimal, and we do not believe that such bias would differentially affect our assessment of secular trends. The BRFSS sample size is large, and some of the statistically significant differences may purely reflect this. Conversely, the smaller sample size of the NHANES may explain some of clinically significant differences that were not statistically significant. Finally, we did not have the information needed to assess all of the Alliance measures (for example, urine protein screening), although we have measured changes in the prevalence of microalbuminuria.
Our data suggest that certain subgroups in the population, such as people with less education and noninsulin users, continue to experience lower rates of process of care and intermediate outcomes. Moreover, the availability of health insurance is also a strong factor associated with better processes and outcome measures. We hope that the positive changes in quality improvement follow the sigmoid pattern of any diffusion of innovation, and with time and effort, the beneficial improvement will spread to the more resistant groups (55). We should identify and target those people who have not yet benefited from these improvements.
Overall, quality of care for people with diabetes has improved in the past 10 years, but important opportunities remain for further improvement. Currently, 1 in 5 people with diabetes (2.2 million people) has poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c > 9%), 2 in 5 people with diabetes (3.6 million people) have poor LDL cholesterol level control (LDL cholesterol level ≥ 3.4 mmol/L [≥130 mg/dL]), 1 in 3 people with diabetes (3.5 million people) has poor blood pressure control (≥140/90 mm Hg), and 1 in 3 people with diabetes has not received annual eye (3.2 million people) or foot examinations (3.1 million people).
The change in the demographic composition of the U.S. population and the increasing diabetes prevalence will mean many more people with diabetes in the future (2). Ensuring access to and delivering high-quality care for all people with diabetes should be a national priority. Understanding how to better implement known and existing diabetes care interventions within finite resources may be the key.
References
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: General Information and National Estimates on Diabetes in the United States, 2005. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005.
2.
Honeycutt AA, Boyle JP, Broglio KR, Thompson TJ, Hoerger TJ, Geiss LS, et al. A dynamic Markov model for forecasting diabetes prevalence in the United States through 2050. Health Care Manag Sci. 2003;6:155-64. [PMID: 12943151]
3.
Narayan KM, Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Sorensen SW, Williamson DF. Lifetime risk for diabetes mellitus in the United States. JAMA. 2003;290:1884-90. [PMID: 14532317]
4.
Hogan P, Dall T, Nikolov P. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:917-32. [PMID: 12610059]
5.
Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:393-403. [PMID: 11832527]
6.
The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977-86. [PMID: 8366922]
7.
Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352:837-53. [PMID: 9742976]
8.
Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998;317:703-13. [PMID: 9732337]
9.
Goldberg RB, Mellies MJ, Sacks FM, Moyé LA, Howard BV, Howard WJ, et al. Cardiovascular events and their reduction with pravastatin in diabetic and glucose-intolerant myocardial infarction survivors with average cholesterol levels: subgroup analyses in the cholesterol and recurrent events (CARE) trial. The Care Investigators. Circulation. 1998;98:2513-9. [PMID: 9843456]
10.
Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Lancet. 2000;355:253-9. [PMID: 10675071]
11.
Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy. ETDRS report number 9. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:766-85. [PMID: 2062512]
12.
Litzelman DK, Slemenda CW, Langefeld CD, Hays LM, Welch MA, Bild DE, et al. Reduction of lower extremity clinical abnormalities in patients with non–insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:36-41. [PMID: 8498761]
13.
Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy as practiced in the diabetes control and complications trial. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. JAMA. 1996;276:1409-15. [PMID: 8892716]
14.
Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998;317:720-6. [PMID: 9732339]
15.
Schwartz JS, Boccuzzi SJ, Glick H, Cook JR, Pederson TR, Kjekshus J. Cost-effectiveness of LDL-C reduction in diabetic CHD patients: implications from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) [Abstract]. Circulation. 1997;96 suppl 1 1504-5.
16.
Javitt JC, Aiello LP, Chiang Y, Ferris FL 3rd, Canner JK, Greenfield S. Preventive eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the federal government. Implications for health-care reform. Diabetes Care. 1994;17:909-17. [PMID: 7956643]
17.
Siegel JE, Krolewski AS, Warram JH, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of screening and early treatment of nephropathy in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1992;3:S111-9. [PMID: 1457753]
18.
Saaddine JB, Engelgau MM, Beckles GL, Gregg EW, Thompson TJ, Narayan KM. A diabetes report card for the United States: quality of care in the 1990s. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:565-74. [PMID: 11955024]
19.
Beckles GL, Engelgau MM, Narayan KM, Herman WH, Aubert RE, Williamson DF. Population-based assessment of the level of care among adults with diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1432-8. [PMID: 9727887]
20.
Engelgau MM, Geiss LS, Manninen DL, Orians CE, Wagner EH, Friedman NM, et al. Use of services by diabetes patients in managed care organizations. Development of a diabetes surveillance system. CDC Diabetes in Managed Care Work Group. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:2062-8. [PMID: 9839095]
21.
Kenny SJ, Smith PJ, Goldschmid MG, Newman JM, Herman WH. Survey of physician practice behaviors related to diabetes mellitus in the U.S. Physician adherence to consensus recommendations. Diabetes Care. 1993;16:1507-10. [PMID: 8299440]
22.
Fleming BB, Greenfield S, Engelgau MM, Pogach LM, Clauser SB, Parrott MA. The Diabetes Quality Improvement Project: moving science into health policy to gain an edge on the diabetes epidemic. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1815-20. [PMID: 11574448]
23.
Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance. Accessed at www.nationaldiabetesalliance.org on 1 June 2005.
24.
Plan and operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-94. Series 1: programs and collection procedures. Vital Health Stat 1. 1994;:1-407. [PMID: 7975354]
25.
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994 References Manuals and Reports: Manual for Medical Technicians and Laboratory Procedures Used for NHANES III [CD-ROM]. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1996.
26.
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988–94) Reference Manuals and Reports [CD-ROM]. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1996.
27.
National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES 1999–2000 Data Files. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes99_00.htm on 2 February 2006.
28.
Standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28 Suppl 1 S4-S36. [PMID: 15618112]
29.
Frazier EL, Franks AI, Sanderson LM. Using Chronic Disease Data: A Handbook for Public Health Practitioners. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1992:1-17.
30.
Korn EL, Graubard BI, eds. Predictive margins (direct standardization). In: Korn EL, Graubard BI, eds. Analysis of Health Surveys. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 1999:126-39.
31.
Sawin CT, Walder DJ, Bross DS, Pogach LM. Diabetes process and outcome measures in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Diabetes Care. 2004;27 Suppl 2 B90-4. [PMID: 15113789]
32.
Roubideaux Y, Buchwald D, Beals J, Middlebrook D, Manson S, Muneta B, et al. Measuring the quality of diabetes care for older american indians and alaska natives. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:60-5. [PMID: 14713699]
33.
McClain MR, Wennberg DE, Sherwin RW, Steinmann WC, Rice JC. Trends in the diabetes quality improvement project measures in Maine from 1994 to 1999. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:597-601. [PMID: 12610007]
34.
Jencks SF, Huff ED, Cuerdon T. Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001. JAMA. 2003;289:305-12. [PMID: 12525231]
35.
Kerr EA, Gerzoff RB, Krein SL, Selby JV, Piette JD, Curb JD, et al. Diabetes care quality in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System and commercial managed care: the TRIAD study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:272-81. [PMID: 15313743]
36.
Jha AK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW, Dudley RA. Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2218-27. [PMID: 12773650]
37.
Saydah SH, Fradkin J, Cowie CC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA. 2004;291:335-42. [PMID: 14734596]
38.
Imperatore G, Cadwell BL, Geiss L, Saadinne JB, Williams DE, Ford ES, et al. Thirty-year trends in cardiovascular risk factor levels among US adults with diabetes: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1971-2000. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:531-9. [PMID: 15353413]
39.
Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. CDC Diabetes Cost-effectiveness Group. JAMA. 2002;287:2542-51. [PMID: 12020335]
40.
Smoking and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25 Suppl 1 S80-S82.
41.
Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2002;25 Suppl 1 S33-S49.
42.
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for the management of diabetes mellitus: the AACE system of intensive diabetes self-management—2002 update. Endocr Pract. 2002;8 Suppl 1 40-82.
43.
Mealey B. Diabetes and periodontal diseases. J Periodontol. 1999;70:935-49. [PMID: 10476904]
44.
Bridges RB, Anderson JW, Saxe SR, Gregory K, Bridges SR. Periodontal status of diabetic and non-diabetic men: effects of smoking, glycemic control, and socioeconomic factors. J Periodontol. 1996;67:1185-92. [PMID: 8959568]
45.
Taylor GW, Burt BA, Becker MP, Genco RJ, Shlossman M, Knowler WC, et al. Severe periodontitis and risk for poor glycemic control in patients with non–insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Periodontol. 1996;67:1085-93. [PMID: 8910827]
46.
Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, Shortliffe EA, Landsman PB, Cowper PA, et al. A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non–insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:59-66. [PMID: 7730940]
47.
Rubins HB, Robins SJ, Collins D, Fye CL, Anderson JW, Elam MB, et al. Gemfibrozil for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in men with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:410-8. [PMID: 10438259]
48.
Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD). Accessed at www.accordtrial.org on 30 November 2005.
49.
Grant RW, Buse JB, Meigs JB. Quality of diabetes care in U.S. academic medical centers: low rates of medical regimen change. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:337-442. [PMID: 15677789]
50.
Brown AF, Jiang L, Fong DS, Gutierrez PR, Coleman AL, Lee PP, et al. Need for eye care among older adults with diabetes mellitus in fee-for-service and managed Medicare. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:669-75. [PMID: 15883287]
51.
Stein AD, Lederman RI, Shea S. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaire: its reliability in a statewide sample. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:1768-72. [PMID: 8259816]
52.
Stein AD, Courval JM, Lederman RI, Shea S. Reproducibility of responses to telephone interviews: demographic predictors of discordance in risk factor status. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:1097-105. [PMID: 7771444]
53.
Bowlin SJ, Morrill BD, Nafziger AN, Lewis C, Pearson TA. Reliability and changes in validity of self-reported cardiovascular disease risk factors using dual response: the behavioral risk factor survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:511-7. [PMID: 8636724]
54.
Fowles JB, Rosheim K, Fowler EJ, Craft C, Arrichiello L. The validity of self-reported diabetes quality of care measures. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11:407-12. [PMID: 10561032]
55.
Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA. 2003;289:1969-75. [PMID: 12697800]
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 144 • Number 7 • 4 April 2006
Pages: 465 - 474
History
Published online: 4 April 2006
Published in issue: 4 April 2006
Keywords
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Download article citation data for:
Improvements in Diabetes Processes of Care and Intermediate Outcomes: United States, 1988–2002. Ann Intern Med.2006;144:465-474. [Epub 4 April 2006]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00005
Improvements in Diabetes Processes of Care and Intermediate Outcomes: United States, 1988–2002. Ann Intern Med.2006;144:465-474. [Epub 4 April 2006]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00005
View More
Login Options:
Purchase
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
Access to EPUBs and PDFs for FREE Annals content requires users to be registered and logged in. A subscription is not required. You can create a free account below or from the following link. You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals. If you are accessing the Free Annals content via your institution's access, registration is not required.
Create your Free Account
You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals.
Comments
0 Comments