DIABETES IN RURAL AMERICA: A LITERATURE REVIEW
by Betty Dabney and Annie Gosschalk
SCOPE OF PROBLEM
- Diabetes mellitus was
the sixth ranking leading cause of death in 1999.78
- Diabetes is an “ambulatory-care-sensitive”
condition.77
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
America is in the midst of a diabetes epidemic. The number of
diagnosed cases has increased nearly 10-fold over the past 40 years and has
nearly doubled in the past 10 years.31, 41, 79 Approximately 17
million Americans¾6 percent of the population¾are diabetic, with perhaps one-third
of the cases being undiagnosed.1-3 Furthermore, a newly recognized
condition called “pre-diabetes” affects another estimated 16 million Americans.2,
3
Diabetes imposes a costly
burden on the American health care system. Total direct and indirect costs due
to diabetes rose from an estimated $98 billion per year in 1997 to $132 billion
in 2002.2, 80, 137 This translates to an annual health care cost of
$13,243 for each person with diabetes, compared to $2,560 for non-diabetics,
for 2002.137
The Healthy People 2010 goal
relating to diabetes is as follows: Through prevention programs, reduce the
disease and economic burden of diabetes, and improve the quality of life for
all persons who have or are at risk for diabetes.5
For the purposes of this
literature review, the following Healthy People 2010 objectives will be
addressed:
- 5-1.
Increase the proportion of persons with diabetes who receive formal
diabetes education.
- 5-2.
Prevent new cases of diabetes.
- 5-3.
Reduce the overall rate of diabetes that is clinically diagnosed.
- 5-4.
Increase the proportion of adults with diabetes whose condition has been
diagnosed.
- 5-5.
Reduce the diabetes death rate.
- 5-6.
Reduce diabetes-related deaths among persons with diabetes.
- 5-7. Reduce deaths from cardiovascular disease in
persons with diabetes.
Pertinent to the discussion
of diabetes are the following terms:
- Diabetes, more properly called diabetes mellitus, is
actually a group of diseases involving the inability to produce or use
insulin, and resulting in elevated plasma glucose (blood sugar) levels.1,
25
- Type 1, juvenile or insulin-dependent diabetes,
involves the inability to produce insulin from the outset. It generally
has an early age of onset, is probably irreversible, and accounts for 5-10
percent of all cases.
- Type 2, adult-onset or non-insulin dependent diabetes,
is 90-95 percent of all cases. Type 2 diabetes begins with insulin
resistance and high insulin levels years before diagnosis.81
Type 2 is generally later onset, but it is becoming much more common in
children.82-85
- Gestational
diabetes occurs in 2-5 percent
of all pregnancies in the U.S.
This form of diabetes is not necessarily permanent, but it can predispose
both mother and child to type 2 diabetes.40
- Other diabetes refers here to less common forms induced by certain drugs, trauma,
surgery, infections, heritable conditions, chemicals, or environmental
contaminants.55, 56, 86
Identified by People Living in Rural Areas as a High Priority
Health Issue for Them
According to
the Rural Healthy People 2010 survey, diabetes was identified as the third
highest ranking rural health concern.6 In this nationwide survey of state
and local rural health leaders, diabetes was ranked third among the most
frequently nominated rural health priorities, after access and heart disease
and stroke. There was substantial agreement on the rural priority status of
diabetes relative to all other Healthy People 2010 functional areas. Diabetes
ranked second, third, and fourth, respectively, among leaders of rural
community health centers and clinics, rural hospitals, and state health
leaders; it ranked 12th among local public health agencies¾a statistically significant
difference among the respondent groups. Diabetes was among the top five
priorities in all four geographic regions. The South, more than the other three
regions, rated diabetes as a priority¾the second ranked rural priority in the South. The
difference across the regions fell just short
of statistical significance.7
Prevalence AND DISPARITIES in Rural
Areas
Diabetes (including
gestational diabetes) prevalence increased in individual states between 1990
and 1998. In 1990, only four states had an overall prevalence of diabetes
greater than 6 percent. By 1997-98, 22 states had a prevalence of at least 6
percent, and all but two states had at least a 4 percent prevalence.49
Diabetes impacts every area
of society. It occurs across all racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, but it
is two to five times more common in African Americans, Hispanics, Native
Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.8-12 Compared with
non-Hispanic whites, these groups also have an increased risk for developing
complications, for hospitalization, and for death from diabetes.31
Diabetes risk also increases with age.31 Minority group populations
are increasing at faster rates than the white population in America, and society
is aging. Based on census projections of sociodemographic
changes in the U.S. population, the prevalence of diabetes is expected to
increase nearly two fold by 2050.4
The prevalence of diabetes
also varies by urbanicity and degree of rurality. In 1995, the self-reported 3.6 percent prevalence
of diabetes in non-metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)
of the U.S. was higher than in central cities (3.19 percent) and all MSAs (3.24 percent).13 These figures are
undoubtedly underestimates because of the recent upsurge in cases nationwide
and the large number of undiagnosed cases.87
The prevalence of diabetes
may vary significantly in different rural regions of the country. It is
generally more common in the Southeast and Southwest.12, 14-16 Rates
are also very high in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and somewhat higher in Alaska.21,
88, 89 Regional differences may reflect racial/ethnic, socioeconomic,
age, and lifestyle factors.
An important rural population
group is migrant farm workers. Estimates on their total number have ranged from
750,000 to 5 million. Migrant workers are often not counted in national health
surveys because of their transient employment and location, and no national
prevalence data are available.90 Nevertheless, in two published
studies on migrant health clinics, diabetes rose in rank from the sixth most
frequent diagnosis or reason for physician visits in 1980 to first place in
1986-1987.17, 18
The issue of rural-urban
disparities for diabetes is quite complex; however, the prevalence appears to
be higher in developed rural areas and lower in undeveloped ones.19-21
As the differences between rural and urban lifestyles disappear, higher rural prevalences may reflect differences in socioeconomic,
racial/ethnic, or age status, more so than rurality per
se. Rural residents from undeveloped areas typically develop diabetes at
higher rates after moving to cities.91
As the differences between
rural and urban lifestyles disappear, rural-urban disparities may reflect
socioeconomic or racial/ethnic differences. This was true for Hawaii; only 3
percent of the geographic variation in diabetes prevalence was due to rural
residence, and 35 percent was explained by differences in racial/ethnic proportions.92
IMPACT OF THE CONDITION ON MORTALITY
Diabetes was the sixth
leading cause of death in the U.S. for the year 2000, accounting for a
preliminary 68,662 deaths in 2000.23 Death rates for diabetics are
two times higher than for non-diabetics, and higher for both genders and for
all ages and races.24 Diabetics are two to four times more likely to
die from heart disease; those with pre-diabetes are twice as likely to die from
heart disease.3, 25 Diabetes is the leading cause of deaths from
kidney disease.26
In the Harvard Nurses Study,
women with type 2 diabetes at enrollment were over three times more likely to
die than those without diabetes during the 20-year follow-up period. The risk
of death from all causes associated with pre-existing diabetes and coronary
heart disease (CHD) was additive. Diabetes elevated the risk of dying from CHD
nearly 7½ fold over the 20-year period, and the presence of both conditions at
the outset elevated the risk of dying from CHD nearly 18 fold.93
If one also considers deaths
from diabetes as an underlying cause, the toll is much higher. In 2000, deaths
from complications of diabetes¾heart
disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes,
infections, kidney disease, and hypertension¾totaled 1,098,857, or 45.7 percent of
the total deaths in the U.S.23 Diabetes may not be a factor in all
these deaths but could be involved in most of them, for it is severely
under-reported as an underlying cause of death.24 Once these
considerations are taken into account, diabetes is undoubtedly a major killer
of Americans.
Death rates from diabetes are
not uniform throughout the country, and regional differences in mortality from
diabetes can be highly significant. Highest age-adjusted diabetes mortality
rates are generally in the Southeast and Southwest.27 Racial/ethnic
differences account for much larger differences in mortality from diabetes in
the U.S. than rural-urban differences.28, 29
IMPACT OF THE CONDITION ON MORBIDITY
From the latest estimates of
17 million diabetics and 16 million with pre-diabetes,1-3 diabetes
affects 11.5 percent of the 287 million Americans. This does not include the
unknown but substantial number of persons in earlier stages of the disease.
Over 760,000 people were diagnosed with diabetes each year during the 1990s.31
The risk of type 2 diabetes increases with age for the first seven decades, and
it is slightly more common in women.4, 31 It is not uncommon for
25-50 percent of elderly people in the high-risk racial/ethnic groups to be
diabetic.
Once it develops, diabetes is
a chronic, lifelong disease with no cure and rather ineffective, costly
treatment. According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey, diabetes is the
sixth leading cause of hospitalization in the U.S. for men at least 45 years old,
and it is seventh overall for women of comparable ages.30 In 1996,
diabetes was listed as a discharge diagnosis in 3.8 million cases.31
Hospitalizations are only a
small part of the total picture of morbidity from diabetes, however. There were
64 million office visits to physicians and 1.2 million emergency room visits
made by diabetics in 1996.31 In 1997, total work-loss days from
diabetes totaled 14 million; disability days were nearly 88 million, and 74,927
workers with diabetes were permanently disabled.80
Contributor
to MANY Other Health Problems
Diabetes itself is only part
of the picture of morbidity and mortality in diabetics. Diabetes has serious
complications that affect the direct cost of health care and also indirect
costs such as days lost from work, premature death, and quality of life. Many
of these complications are chronic, life-long conditions requiring intensive,
ongoing, and expensive treatment. The duration of the disease is a major factor
for development of complications.36-38
Virtually every system in the
body can develop complications from diabetes:25, 26, 32-35
- cardiovascular
disease;
- abnormal blood lipid
profiles;
- hypertension;
- stroke;
- blindness;
- end-stage renal
disease requiring kidney dialysis or transplants;
- impotence;
- peripheral neuropathy
(numbness or pain in the extremities);
- gangrene and
amputation of lower limbs;
- periodontal disease;
- more frequent
infections, including pneumonia and influenza; and
- psychological effects¾depression, social stigma, and
discrimination.
Gestational diabetes is a
major risk to both mother and infant1, 25, 39, 40 and is associated
with the following conditions and outcomes:
- pre-eclampsia (life-threatening high blood pressure) in
pregnant women,
- complications of
pregnancy,
- macrosomia (large birth weight),
- neonatal
complications,
- infant mortality,
- birth defects, and
- increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes in mother
and child.
It is not unusual for some
diabetics to have more than one serious complication.94 However,
many of the complications of diabetes can be prevented.25
BARRIERS
In the face of a steadily
increasing prevalence of diabetes, the American health care system has failed
to prevent, detect, and manage diabetes adequately.31, 57, 58 This
is especially true in rural and low-income areas.59-61 Rural
diabetics on Medicare are less likely to visit a physician than their urban
counterparts, and fewer of them have insurance coverage for medications.57,
62-64 Rural residents tend to rely on home health care in lieu of office
visits.64 Diabetes was the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S.
for the year 2000, accounting for a preliminary 68,662 deaths in 2000.23
Death rates for diabetics are two times higher than for non-diabetics, and
higher for both genders and for all ages and races.24 Diabetics are
two to four times more likely to die from heart disease; those with
pre-diabetes are twice as likely to die from heart disease.3, 25
Diabetes is the leading cause of deaths from kidney disease.26 Rural
residence is a significant risk factor for never receiving an ophthalmic
examination,65 which can detect early signs of diabetic retinopathy.
When rural residents do see a doctor, they are more likely to see a generalist
than a specialist for treatment of diabetes.62 Rural patients with a
history of gestational diabetes are at high risk for developing type 2
diabetes, yet only 30 percent have adequate follow-up by their physicians.95
Irrespective of location,
diagnosis often comes too late to prevent development of irreversible
complications, sometimes more than 10 years after onset of the disease.50
Rushed physicians who see more patients are much less likely to order
recommended screening tests to detect early stages of diabetes complications.96
Quality of care for diabetes
among Medicare beneficiaries, measured by frequency of receiving core medical
tests, is actually better in large rural communities than in all other
locations, including urban ones, but it is worst in remote rural areas.62
One study finds that among diabetics on Medicare, significantly fewer rural
diabetics than urban ones receive adequate posthospital
home health care.66
KNOWN
CAUSES OF THE CONDITION OR PROBLEM SO EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS OR SOLUTIONS CAN
BE IDENTIFIED
Demographic, Socioeconomic, Lifestyle, and
Environmental Factors
There are several
explanations for the dramatic increase in diabetes. The risk of type 2 diabetes
increases with age, and the American population is getting steadily older. Yet
only 30 percent of the increased prevalence in diabetes is due to aging of the
population.79
Diabetes, like other chronic
diseases, is associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES).46-49
It is also more common in people exposed to certain environmental chemicals¾notably
arsenic, dioxins, trichloroethylene, and benzene.54-56 Exposures to
other environmental toxicants may be important but have not been fully
investigated. Environmentally induced diabetes may be closely linked with
socioeconomic status, because people in the lower SES strata tend to have
higher exposures to environmental contaminants.97
Type 2 diabetes is closely
linked with obesity, and its rise parallels the steadily increasing girth in
the American population.41 The typical American diet, laden with fat
and sugars, along with a sedentary lifestyle, are major factors contributing to
the increase in obesity and diabetes. This relationship between lifestyle and
diabetes is dramatically illustrated in various immigrant groups, who typically
develop diabetes as they become Americanized.98-101 Obesity and lack
of leisure activity are more common in rural than in urban areas.30
The quality of one’s diet, as
well as its quantity, also contributes to the risk of developing type 2
diabetes. While the total contribution of carbohydrates to the typical American
diet is very much the same as it was in 1900, the consumption of simple sugars,
mainly in the form of soft drinks, has risen dramatically since that time to
over 19 ounces per day per person.102 Consumption of dairy products
protects against the development of insulin resistance syndrome, a precursor of
type 2 diabetes.103 This may be because people who are drinking more
milk consume less soft drinks.
Overall, the best efforts in
public health have not been effective in reducing high-risk behaviors in
Americans. There has been no improvement in food preferences or physical
inactivity, according to the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.49
Racial/Ethnic and Genetic Factors, and Pathophysiology
As previously mentioned, type
2 diabetes occurs more frequently in minority groups, those of lower
socioeconomic status, and women.9, 11, 12 The rural-urban disparity
may be much higher for African Americans; in 1994, prevalence rates were 5.34
percent for non-MSA residents versus 3.61 percent in MSAs¾a 48 percent difference.22
Type 2 diabetes clearly has a
genetic component, for it tends to occur in families. There is a high
concordance between identical twins.42, 43 Having a family history
is a clearly established risk factor.44, 45
Type 2 diabetes develops
slowly over a period of many years before the blood sugar becomes elevated.
Early signs include high serum insulin levels, low blood sugar after a large
meal, a peculiar pigmentation pattern of the skin called acanthosis
nigricans, and modest elevations of fasting blood
sugar.104-107 Some of these signs are already evident in at-risk
children.108
The exact cause in individual
cases of type 1 diabetes is often unclear; stress, trauma, infection, and
genetics may all play a role.1, 25 Gestational diabetes is associated
with excessive weight gain during pregnancy, but it is undoubtedly due to
underlying predisposing conditions.109 Drug or chemically induced
diabetes can sometimes, but not always, be traced to a specific exposure.
Clinical Diagnosis
Unfortunately, many people in
the pre-clinical stages of diabetes have not been diagnosed.2, 3 By
the time blood glucose becomes elevated to the clinical definition of diabetes,
irreversible complications may have already taken place.50-52 Thus,
the clinical diagnosis based on elevated blood glucose may be too late to
prevent reversible changes.
However, several important
risk factors for type 2 diabetes can be easily identified years before the
development of the disease, and these should be incorporated into routine
surveillance of at-risk populations. Among these are obesity; sedentary
lifestyle; android (“apple”) body type, characterized by a high waist-to-hip
ratio; age; family history of diabetes; giving birth to a macrosomic
infant (weighing more than nine pounds); and a peculiar pigmentation pattern of
the skin called acanthosis nigricans
(AN).44, 45, 104, 110, 111
Possibly less well known, AN
is probably the most visible indicator for the layman. It appears as dark,
thick, velvety patches on the back of the neck, armpits, elbows and knuckles,
knees, and groin. For reasons not fully understood, the presence of AN
correlates with high blood insulin levels, a precursor of type 2 diabetes, even
more so than obesity.53 AN is often mistaken for dirt, and mothers
may fuss at their children for not washing properly. It has been seen in
children as young as four years of age.108 As with diabetes itself,
persons of color are more likely to develop AN.112, 113
PROPOSED Solutions or Interventions That Are
Feasible in Rural Communities
Regardless of the type of
diabetes, the risks of morbidity, mortality and complications are related to
the degree of control of blood sugar levels.67, 70 Unfortunately,
such control is not maintained in many diabetics, especially as they get older.
Traditional treatments of diet, exercise, oral pharmaceuticals, and insulin
therapy tend to be progressively more ineffective with duration of the disease.114
Psychosocial factors such as
social impact and complexity of the diet regimen, along with age, history of
smoking, and presence of renal disease, may be more important in determining
survival than traditional clinical measures.115 These considerations
are important to take into account when planning effective prevention,
interventions, and treatments for diabetes.
The solutions to controlling
the epidemic of diabetes are not high-tech. Because diabetes cannot be cured or
adequately treated by present methods, the Diabetes Prevention Program Research
Group has recommended prevention as the preferable approach.67
There are three types of
prevention, each staged to the development of diabetes:
- Primary prevention refers to delay or prevention of the onset of
the disease in those at risk. Early stages of type 2 diabetes can be
reversed by exercise and modest weight loss.68, 69 Onset of
type 2 diabetes can be prevented or delayed by similar means.67
Methods of preventing type 1 and gestational diabetes are not well understood.
Chemical- or drug-induced diabetes can be prevented by avoiding or
minimizing exposure to the diabetogenic agent.
There is much controversy about gestational diabetes, especially as to
whether or not universal screening of all pregnancies prevents adverse
outcomes.109
- Secondary
prevention means prevention
complications in those already diagnosed with diabetes. Complications can
be prevented or delayed by effective control of blood glucose.70-72
- Tertiary prevention aims at preventing worsening of complications
once they have developed. Up to 90 percent of diabetes-related blindness
can be prevented with appropriate screening and regular eye care,
including annual fundoscopic (dilated) eye
examinations.26 Over half of diabetics’ lower limb amputations
are preventable with patient education and care.25, 26
All types of prevention have
a place in management of diabetes from a medical and public health perspective,
but primary prevention is ultimately the most cost effective and the most desirable
from an ethical standpoint. The latest HHS recommendations are aimed at
intervention at the pre-diabetes stage.2, 3
Based on strict review of
published studies, the HHS Task Force on Community Preventive Services has
recommended four types of interventions for reducing morbidity and mortality
from diabetes. These are case and disease management by health care providers,
community-based self-management education programs for adults with type 2
diabetes, and home-based programs for children and adolescents with type 1.73
Successful treatment of
diabetes is complex. It involves patient education and monitoring of nutrition,
exercise, motivation, and lifestyle, which physicians as a rule are not trained
to provide. It also requires a large component of self-management, which is
likely to be more successful if the provider-patient relationship and level of
patient satisfaction are positive.
The American health care
system, based on a model of providing acute care, has not been especially
effective in the treatment and management of diabetes and other chronic
diseases. A new model for diabetes care is needed, one that takes all these
elements into account and is based on a chronic rather than acute disease
model.75, 76
An intriguing new model of
health care has shown promise for routine maintenance of diabetic patients
after diagnosis. Using a “cluster visit” or “shared medical appointment”
structure, groups of patients meet periodically with non-physician health
professionals such as nurses, psychologists, diabetes educators, and
dietitians.116 The cluster visit model has also been combined with
case management in a rural area.117 This model is attractive in two
respects: it may be more cost effective than a typical managed-care setting,
and it can be used in rural areas not served by a physician. It could also
provide a mechanism for social support in addition to health care.
Most published studies with a
community component address only one component of diabetes education,
prevention, detection, and care. Some of the more comprehensive programs are
found in rural health networks, such as PennCARE.
This HCFA (now CMS) coordinated care demonstration project uses a hybrid case
and disease management approach.118
Early detection of diabetic
retinopathy has been successful with mobile eye clinics, Polaroid or digital
retinal photography with telemetry for remote diagnosis, and training of
primary care physicians or optometrists in using the technologies.119-125
On-line access using a
customized software program is effective for diabetes education and for
providing social support to rural women in remote areas.126
The Kentucky Diabetes Control
Program is based on a pyrimidal model to train
paraprofessional subspecialists through centralized
resource centers and regional diabetes teaching teams, as a way of reaching
primary care providers and patients cost effectively.127 This
program did not depend on networking of providers, but a non-profit program in
Utah conducted by HealthInsight, based
on combining providers from rural and urban areas for their mutual benefit. The
organizers followed up with attendees to monitor progress toward goals set in
the workshop.128
Many published diabetes
education programs have not been culturally sensitive. One exception is the
Texas Rio Grande Valley Diabetes Education Study, which has used
Mexican-American diabetes educators and a Spanish-language curriculum at an
appropriate educational level. This study used the local county Extension
office as a neutral meeting place.129
Of 82 published adult
diabetes education programs, most of them (51 percent) were conducted at
clinics, followed by hospital settings (22 percent). Very few were done in the
patient's home (1.2 percent) or in a private physician’s office (2.4 percent).
These programs were not necessarily based in rural areas, and only 34 out of
the 82 programs (41 percent) had follow-up of 24 weeks or longer.74
However, the question of whether or not diabetes education has any lasting
effect on clinical outcomes remains largely unanswered.
Many effective rural diabetes
prevention programs can be developed and implemented at the local level in the
absence of local health care providers. Exercise may be one of the most
important ways to improve diabetes risk factors, even more so than weight loss.130,
131 Self-reported level of exercise was the only significant predictor of
quality of life for diabetics.132 Rural communities and organizations
can sponsor exercise programs, with or without the participation of health care
providers.
Parents can work with school
administrators to provide healthier meals and snacks in the schools, and to
develop alternatives to selling soft drinks and high-fat snacks from vending
machines in the school corridors. States can tax soft drinks and fast foods and
provide incentives to schools to stop selling them, as seen in legislation
introduced in California.133
Social service agencies and
grocery stores can provide information on nutrition and healthy lifestyles to
families using social assistance or food stamps. Pharmacies and grocery stores
can distribute information on diabetes risk factors and prevention. The cost of
educational materials can be underwritten by companies that market and
distribute fresh, whole foods, as well as by the parent grocery and pharmacy
companies. Even grocery store checkers can be trained to provide information on
preventing diabetes to customers.
In addition to prevention,
early detection may be critical for preventing development of complications.
Community-based screenings and health fairs may be the most cost effective way
to identify persons at risk, based on a simple questionnaire and fasting or
random blood glucose values from glucometer readings.2
Many pharmacies are located
closer to rural markets than physicians and can potentially provide some
services traditionally performed by health care providers.134 With
some training, pharmacists could do diabetes education, screening, and routine
follow-ups. Diabetes education has been successfully conducted at a rural
pharmacy.135 Pharmacists and grocers could sell individual blood
glucose tests. Individuals with a preliminary diagnosis could be referred to
health care providers, and those found to be at risk could be provided with
literature and on-site counseling or community-based classes on healthy
lifestyles.
For those who have been
diagnosed with diabetes, regular follow-up is essential. Routine office visits
need not be performed by a physician, however.116, 117 Using
existing resources in different ways, rather than restructuring the rural
health care system, may be the most effective means to provide better health
services to rural diabetics.134
Community
ModelS Known to Work
Diabetes is a major public
health problem, and successful models for practice reflect the importance given
to preventing diabetes and its complications in rural populations. Of the 68
rural awardees in the Models that Work program funded by the Health Resources
and Services Administration’s Bureau of Primary Health Care, 11 have programs
in diabetes education, screening, prevention, or treatment.136
See the Models
for Practice section in Volume 1 for a catalog of models.
Summary and Conclusions
America is in the midst of an
epidemic of diabetes, which, if unchecked, will produce an intolerable burden
on our health care system and quality of life over the next generation. The
prevalence of diabetes is somewhat higher in rural than in urban areas, but
racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle factors appear to be stronger risk
factors for diabetes than rural residence per se. Rural diabetics tend
to be diagnosed later and receive substandard health care compared to their
urban counterparts.
However, type 2 diabetes, the
predominant form, can largely be prevented by the simple means of modest weight
loss, healthy eating, and exercise. The American public health and health care
systems have been largely ineffective in dealing with prevention and treatment
of diabetes. Rural areas are especially disadvantaged because of the lack of
nearby health care providers who are knowledgeable about diabetes and less
access to insurance coverage.
New cost-effective approaches
need to be developed around a chronic disease model, using the existing health
care and public health infrastructure, and based upon preventive and routine
patient care clustered at the community level by allied health professionals.
These approaches may also be useful in solving the related problems of access
to health care and prevention and management of other chronic diseases.
REFERENCES
1. American Diabetes
Association (ADA). Diabetes Facts and Figures, 2000. <http://www.diabetes.org/ada/ facts.asp
>February 28, 2001.
2. ADA and National Institute of
Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The prevention or delay of
type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 25:742-749, 2002.
3. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS). HHS, ADA warn Americans of ‘pre-diabetes,’ encourage
people to take healthy steps to reduce risks. Updated statistics show 17
million with diabetes, 16 million more with pre-diabetes. Washington, DC: DHHS
Press Release, March 27, 2002.
4. Boyle, J.P.; Honeycutt, A.A.; Narayan, K.M.; et al. Projection of diabetes burden through
2050. Impact of changing demography and disease prevalence in the U.S. Diabetes
Care 24(11):1936-1940, 2001.
5. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. With
Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2 vols.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2000.
6. Gamm,
L.; Hutchison, L.; Bellamy, G.; et al. Rural healthy people 2010: Identifying
rural health priorities and models for practice. Journal of Rural Health
18(1):9-14, 2002.
7. Gamm,
L., and Hutchison, L. Rural health priorities in America¾Where you stand depends on where you
sit. Journal of Rural Health (Forthcoming, Summer 2003).
8. King, H.; Aubert,
R.E.; and Herman, W.H. Global burden of diabetes, 1995-2025. Diabetes Care
21(9):1414-1431, 1998.
9. Harris, M.I. Diabetes in America:
Epidemiology and scope of the problem. Diabetes Care 21 (Suppl 3):C11-C14,1998.
10. Knowler,
W.C.; Pettit, D.J., Saad, M.F.; et al. Diabetes
mellitus in the Pima Indians: Incidence, risk factors, and pathogenesis. Diabetes
and Metabolism Reviews 6(1):1-27, 1990.
11. Carter, J.S.; Pugh, J.A.; and Monterrosa, A. Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in
minorities in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine
125:221-232, 1996.
12. Sundquist,
J.; Winkleby, M.A.; and Pudaric,
S. Cardiovascular disease risk factors among older black, Mexican-American, and
white women and men: An analysis of NHANES III, 1988-1994. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society 49(2):109-116, 2001.
13. National Center for Health
Statistics. Current Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey,
Series 10 No. 199, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 98-1527, Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.
14. Willems
J.P.; Saunders, J.T.; Hunt, D.E.; et al. Prevalence of coronary heart disease
risk factors among rural blacks: A community-based study. Southern Medical
Journal 90(8):814-820, 1997.
15. Michalek,
A.M.; Mahoney, M.C.; and Calebaugh, D. Hypothyroidism
and diabetes mellitus in an American Indian population. Journal of Family
Practice 49(7):638-640, 2000.
16. Gilliland, F.D.; Mahler, R.;
Hunt, W.C.; et al. Preventive health care among rural American Indians in New
Mexico. Preventive Medicine 28(2):194-202, 1999.
17. Hicks, W. Migrant health: An
analysis. Washington, DC: National Association of Community Health Centers,
Inc., 1982.
18. Dever,
G.E.A. Migrant health status: Profile of a population with complex health
problems. Austin, TX: National Migrant Resource Program, Inc., Migrant
Clinicians Network monograph series, 1991.
19. Lerman,
I.G.; Villa, A.R.; Llaca Martinez, C.; et al. The
prevalence of diabetes and associated coronary risk factors in urban and rural
older Mexican populations. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
46(11):1387-1395, 1998.
20. Cruz-Vidal, M.; Costas, R., Jr.; García-Palmieri,
M.R.; et al. Factors related to diabetes mellitus in Puerto Rican men. Diabetes
28(4):300-307, 1979.
21. Haddock, L., and Torres de Conty, I. Prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus in Puerto
Rico. Diabetes Care 14 (Suppl 3):676-684,
1991.
22. Slifkin,
R.T.; Goldsmith, L.J.; and Ricketts, T.J. Race and place: Urban-rural
differences in health for racial and ethnic minorities. Working Paper No. 66.
Chapel Hill, NC: Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health
Services Research, North Carolina Rural Health Research Program, 2000.
23. Minino,
A.M., and Smith, B.L. Deaths: Preliminary data for 2000. National Vital
Statistics Reports 49(12), 2001.
24. Gu, K.;
Cowie, C.C.; and Harris, M.I. Mortality in adults
with and without diabetes in a national cohort of the U.S. population,
1971-1993. Diabetes Care 21:1138-1145, 1998.
25. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National estimates and general
information on diabetes in the United States. Atlanta, GA: HHS, 1998.
26. CDC. Diabetes: A serious public
health problem at a glance 2001. <http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/glance.htm>March
2002.
27. Pickle, L.W.; Mungiole,
M.; Jones, G.K.; et al. Atlas of United States mortality. Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1996.
28. Ricketts, T.C. (ed.). Rural
Health in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 21.
29. Schorr,
V.; Crabtree, D.A.; Wagner, D.; et al. Differences in rural and urban
mortality: Implications for health education and promotion. Journal of Rural
Health 5(1):67-80, 1999.
30. Eberhardt,
M.; Ingram, D.; Makuc, D.; et al. Urban and Rural
Health Chartbook. Health, United States, 2001. Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2001.
31. CDC. Statistics - Diabetes
surveillance, 1999, 2000. <www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/survl99/>June 2002.
32. Smith S.A., and Poland, G.A. Use
of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in people with
diabetes. Diabetes Care 23(1):95-108, 2000.
33. Egede,
L.E.; Zheng, D.; and Simpson, K. Comorbid
depression is associated with increased health care use and expenditures in
individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care 25(3):464-470, 2002.
34. Griffiths, R.D., and Moses, R.G.
Diabetes in the workplace. Employment experiences of young people with diabetes
mellitus. Medical Journal of Australia 158(3):169-171, 1993.
35. Joachim, G., and Acorn, S. Stigma
of visible and invisible chronic conditions. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32(1):243-248,
2000.
36. Florkowski,
C.M.; Scott, R.S.; Coope, P.A.; et al. Age at
diagnosis, glycaemic control and the development of
retinopathy in a population-based cohort of type 1 diabetic subjects in
Canterbury, New Zealand. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
52(2):125-131, 2001.
37. Motala,
A.A.; Pirie, F.J.; Gouws, E.; et al. Microvascular complications in South African patients with
long-duration diabetes mellitus. South African Medical Journal
91(11):987-992, 2001.
38. Porta,
M.; Sjoelie, A-K.; Chaturvedi,
N.; et al. Risk factors for progression to proliferative
diabetic retinopathy in the EURODIAB prospective complications study. Diabetologia 44(12):2203-2209, 2001.
39. Becerra, J.; Khoury,
M.; Cordero, J.; et al. Diabetes mellitus during pregnancy and the risks for
specific birth defects: A population-based case-control study. Pediatrics
85(1):1-9, 1990.
40. Plagemann,
A.; Harder, T.; Kohlhoff, R.; et al. Glucose
tolerance and insulin secretion in children of mothers with pregestational
IDDM or gestational diabetes. Diabetologia 40(9):1094-1100,
1997.
41. Mokdad,
A.H.; Bowman, B.A.; Ford, E.S.; et al. The continuing epidemics of obesity and
diabetes in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association
286(10):1195-1200, 2001.
42. Medici, F.; Hawa,
M.; Ianari, A. et al. Concordance rate for type II
diabetes mellitus in monozygotic twins: Actuarial analysis. Diabetologia
42(2):146-150, 1999.
43. Poulsen,
P.; Kyvik, K.O.; Vaag, A.;
et al. Heritability of type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and
abnormal glucose tolerance¾A
population-based twin study. Diabetologia 42(2):139-145,
1999.
44. Herman, W.H.; Smith, P.J.;
Thompson, T.J.; et al. A new and simple questionnaire to identify people at
increased risk for undiagnosed diabetes. Diabetes Care 18(3):382-387,
1995.
45. Griffin, S.J.; Little, P.S.;
Hales, C.N.; et al. Diabetes risk score: Towards earlier detection of type 2
diabetes in general practice. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
16:164-171, 2000.
46. Adler, N.E., and Ostrove, J.M. Socioeconomic status and health: What we know
and what we don’t. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 896:3-15,
1999.
47. Krieger, N.; Williams, D.R.; and
Moss, N.E. Measuring social class in U.S. public health research: Concepts,
methodologies, and guidelines. Annual Review of Public Health
18:341-378, 1997.
48. Beckles,
G.L.A., and Thompson-Reid, P.E. Socioeconomic status of women with diabetes¾United
States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51:147-148, 159,
2002.
49. CDC. Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System, 2002. <http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/>June 2002.
50. Harris, M.I.; Klein, R.; Welborn,
T.A.; et al. Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4-7 years before clinical
diagnosis. Diabetes Care 15(7):815-819, 1992.
51. Harris, M.I. Undiagnosed NIDDM: Clinical and public
health issues. Diabetes Care 16(4):642-652, 1993.
52. Harris, M.I., and Eastman, R.C. Early detection of
undiagnosed diabetes mellitus: A U.S. perspective. Diabetes and Metabolism
Research Reviews 26:230-236, 2001.
53. Richards, G.E.; Cavallo,
A., Meyer, W.J. III; et al. Obesity, acanthosis nigricans, insulin resistance, and hyperandrogenemia:
Pediatric perspective and natural history. Journal of Pediatrics
107(6):893-897, 1985.
54. Longenecker, M.P., and
Daniels, J.L. Environmental contaminants as etiologic factors for diabetes. Environmental
Health Perspectives 109(Suppl 6):871-876, 2001.
55. Burg, J.R., and Gist, G.L. The national exposure
registry: Analyses of health outcomes from the benzene subregistry.
Toxicology and Industrial Health 14(3):367-387,1998.
56. Institute of Medicine. Committee to review the health
effects in Vietnam veterans of exposure to herbicides. Veterans and agent
orange: Update 2000. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
57. Weiner, J.P.; Parente, S.T.;
Garnick, D.W.; et al. Variation in office-based
quality. A claims-based profile of care provided to Medicare patients with
diabetes. Journal of the American Medical Association 273(19):1503-1508,
1995.
58. Saaddine, J.B.; Engelgau, M.M.; Beckles, G.L.; et
al. A diabetes report card for the United States: Quality of care in the 1990s.
Annals of Internal Medicine 136(8):565-574, 2002.
59. Zoorob, R.J., and Mainous, A.G. III. Practice patterns of rural family
physicians based on the American Diabetes Association standards of care. Journal
of Community Health 21(3):175-182, 1996.
60. Schoepflin, H.M., and Thrailkill, K.M. Pediatric diabetes management in
Appalachian Kentucky: Adherence of primary care physicians to ADA guidelines. Journal
of the Kentucky Medical Association 97(10):473-481, 1999.
61. Bell, R.A.; Camacho, F.; Goonan,
K.; et al. Quality of diabetes care among low-income patients in North
Carolina. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(2):124-131, 2001.
62. Rosenblatt, R.A.; Baldwin, L-M.; Chan, L.; et al.
Improving the quality of outpatient care for older patients with diabetes:
Lessons from a comparison of rural and urban communities. Journal of Family
Practice 50(8):676-680, 2001.
63. Saag, K.G.; Doebbeling, B.N.; Rohrer, J.E.; et al. Variation in
tertiary prevention and health service utilization among the elderly. The role
of urban-rural residence and supplemental insurance. Medical Care
36(7):965-976, 1998.
64. Dansky, K.H., and Dirani, R. The use of health care services by people with
diabetes in rural areas. Journal of Rural Health 14(2):129-137, 1998.
65. Witkin S.R., and Klein R.
Ophthalmic care for persons with diabetes. Journal of the American Medical
Association 251(19): 2534-2537, 1984.
66. Cheh, V., and Phillips, B.
Adequate access to posthospital home health services:
Differences between urban and rural areas. Journal of Rural Health
9(4):262-269, 1993.
67. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (DPPRG).
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. New England Journal of Medicine
346(6):393-403, 2002.
68. Uusitupa, M.; Louheranta, A.; Lindström, J.; et
al. The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. British Journal of Nutrition
83(Suppl 1):S137-S142, 2000.
69. Tuomilehto, J.; Lindström, J.; Eriksson, J.G.; et al. Prevention of type 2
diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose
tolerance. New England Journal of Medicine 344:1343-1350, 2001.
70. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research
Group (DCCT). The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development
and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine 329(14):977-986, 1993.
71. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Effect of
intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on
complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. (UKPDS 34). Lancet
352:854-865, 1998.
72. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive
blood-glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin
compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with
type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837-853, 1998.
73. Evans, G.W., and Kantrowitz,
E. Strategies for reducing morbidity and mortality from diabetes through
health-care system interventions and diabetes self-management education in
community settings. A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community
Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Recommendations
and Reports 50:1-15, 2001.
74. Brown, S.A. Studies of educational interventions and
outcomes in diabetic adults: A meta-analysis revisited. Patient Education
and Counseling 16(3):189-215, 1990.
75. Glasgow, R.E.; Hiss, R.G.; Anderson, R.M.; et al.
Report of the health care delivery work group. Behavioral research related to
the establishment of a chronic disease model for diabetes care. Diabetes
Care 24(1):124-130, 2001.
76. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Health
Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the
21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
77. Institute of Medicine. Appendix D:
Ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions and referral-sensitive surgeries. Access
to Health Care in America. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993,
219-222.
78. CDC. WISQARS leading causes of death reports,
1999-2000. 2002.
<http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/
leadcaus10.html>2002.
79. National Diabetes Data Group. Diabetes in America,
2nd edition. NIH Publication No. 95-1468. Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
Diseases, 1995.
80. ADA. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the
U.S. in 1997. Diabetes Care 21:296-309, 1998.
81. Reaven, G.M. The role of
insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes 37(12):1595-1607, 1988.
82. Pinhas-Hamiel, O.; Dolan,
L.; Daniels, S.; et al. Increased incidence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus among adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics 128(5 Pt 1):608-615,
1996.
83. Fagot-Campagna, A. Emergence
of type 2 diabetes mellitus in children: Epidemiological evidence. Journal
of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism 13 Suppl
6:1395-1402, 2000.
84. Fagot-Campagna, A.; Pettitt, D.; Engelgau, M.; et al.
Type 2 diabetes among North American children and adolescents: An epidemiologic
review and a public health perspective. Journal of Pediatrics
136:664-672, 2000.
85. CDC. Diabetes Projects. Children and Diabetes, 2001.
<http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/cda2.htm>March 2002.
86. Henriksen, G.; Ketchum, N.; Michalek, J.; et al. Serum dioxin and diabetes mellitus in
veterans of Operation Ranch Hand. Epidemiology 8(3):252-258, 1997.
87. King, H., and Zimmet, P.
Trends in the prevalence and incidence of diabetes: Non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus. World Health Statistics Quarterly 41(3-4):190-196,
1988.
88. Grandinetti, A.; Chang,
H.K.; Mau, M.K.; et al. Prevalence of glucose intolerance among Native
Hawaiians in two rural communities. Diabetes Care 21(4):549-554, 1998.
89. Ebbesson, S.O.K.; Schraer, C.D.; Risica, P.M.; et
al. Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in three Alaskan Eskimo
populations. The Alaska-Siberia project. Diabetes Care 21(4):563-569,
1998.
90. Slesinger, D.P. Health
status and needs of migrant farm workers in the United States: A literature
review. Journal of Rural Health 8(3):227-234, 1992.
91. Harris, M.I. Epidemiologic studies on the
pathogenesis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Clinical
and Investigative Medicine 18(4):231-239, 1995.
92. Maskarinec, G. Diabetes in
Hawaii: Estimating prevalence from insurance claims data. American Journal
of Public Health 87(10):1717-1719, 1997.
93. Hu, F.B.; Stampfer, M.J.; Solomon, C.G.; et al. The impact of
diabetes mellitus on mortality from all causes and coronary heart disease in
women. Archives of Internal Medicine 161:1717-1723, 2001.
94. Morgan, C.L.; Currie, C.J.; Stott, N.C.; et al. The
prevalence of multiple diabetes-related complications. Diabetes Medicine
17(2):146-151, 2000.
95. Kaufmann, R.C.; Smith, T.; Bochantin,
T.; et al. Failure to obtain follow-up testing for gestational diabetic
patients in a rural population. Obstetrics and Gynecology 93(5 Pt
1):734-737, 1999.
96. Streja, D.A., and Rabkin, S.W. Factors associated with implementation of
preventive care measures in patients with diabetes mellitus. Archives of
Internal Medicine 159(3):294-302, 1999.
97. Evans, G.W., and Kantrowitz,
E. Socioeconomic status and health: The potential role of environmental
risk exposure. Annual Review of Public Health 23:303-331, 2002.
98. Hazuda, H.P.; Haffner, S.M.; Stern, M.P.; et al. Effects of acculturation
and socioeconomic status on obesity and diabetes in Mexican Americans: The San
Antonio heart study. American Journal of Epidemiology 128(6):1289-1301,
1988.
99. Stern, M.P.; Gonzalez, C.; Mitchell, B.D.; et al.
Genetic and environmental determinants of type II diabetes in Mexico City and
San Antonio. Diabetes 41(4):484-492, 1992.
100. Fujimoto, W.Y.; Bergstrom, R.W.; Boyko,
E.J. et al. Type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome in Japanese Americans. Diabetes
Research and Clinical Practice 50(Suppl
2):S73-S76, 2000.
101. Ravussin, E.; Valencia,
M.E.; Esparza, J.; et al. Effects of a traditional lifestyle on obesity in Pima
Indians. Diabetes Care 17(9):1067-1074, 1994.
102. Dabney, B.J. Increase in
consumption of soft drinks in the American diet since 1900. In preparation.
103. Pereira, M.A.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; Van Horn, L.; et
al. Dairy consumption, obesity, and the insulin resistance syndrome in young
adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 287(16):2081-2089,
2002.
104. de Vegt, F.; Dekker, J.M.; Jager, A.; et al.
Relation of impaired fasting and postload glucose
with incident type 2 diabetes in a Dutch population: The Hoorn
study. Journal of the American Medical Association 285(16):2109-2113,
2001.
105. Gabir, M.M.; Hanson, R.L.; Dabelea, D.; et al. The 1997 American Diabetes Association
and 1999 World Health Organization criteria for hyperglycemia in the diagnosis
and prediction of diabetes. Diabetes Care 23(8):1108-1112, 2000.
106. Shaw, J.E.; Zimmet, P.Z.;
de Courten, M.; et al. Impaired fasting glucose or
impaired glucose tolerance: What best predicts future diabetes in Mauritius? Diabetes
Care 22(3):399-402, 1999.
107. Edelstein, S.L.; Knowler,
W.C.; Bain, R.P.; et al. Predictors of progression from impaired glucose
tolerance to NIDDM: An analysis of six prospective studies. Diabetes
46(4):701-720, 1997.
108. Piziak, V.K., and Dabney, B.J. Risk factors for type 2 diabetes in a Hispanic
pre-school population. In preparation.
109. Xiong, X.;
Saunders, L.D.; Wang, F.L.; et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus: Prevalence,
risk factors, maternal and infant outcomes. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 75:221-228, 2001.
110. Burke, J.P.; Ravindranath,
D.; Hale, D.E.; et al. Genetic basis of acanthosis nigricans in Mexican Americans and its association with
phenotypes related to type 2 diabetes. Human Genetics 106:467-472, 2000.
111. Frayn, K.N. Visceral fat
and insulin resistance¾causative
or correlative? British Journal of Nutrition 83 (Suppl
1):S71-S77, 2000.
112. Stuart C,A.; Gilkison,
C.R.; Keenan, B.S. et al. Hyperinsulinemia and acanthosis nigricans in African
Americans. Journal of the National Medical Association 89:523-527, 1997.
113. Stuart C.A.; Driscoll, M.S.; Lundquist, K.F.; et
al. Acanthosis nigricans. Journal
of Basic Clinical Physiology and Pharmacology 9(2-4):407-418, 1998.
114. Turner, R.C.; Cull, C.A.; Riighi,
V.; et al. Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes
mellitus: Progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49): UK
Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Study Group. Journal of the American
Medical Association 281(21):2005-2012, 1999.
115. Davis, W.K.; Hess, G.E.; and Hiss, R.G. Psychosocial
correlates of survival in diabetes. Diabetes Care 11(7):538-545, 1988.
116. Sadur, C.N.; Moline, N.;
Costa, M.; et al. Diabetes management in a health maintenance organization. Diabetes
Care 22(12):2011-2017, 1999.
117. Stoner, K.L.; Lasar, N.J.;
Butcher, M.K.; et al. Improving glycemic control: Can
techniques used in a managed care setting be successfully adapted to a rural
fee-for-service practice? American Journal of Medical Quality 16(3):93-98,
2001.
118. Anonymous. HCFA demo sites offer a smorgasbord of
managed care innovation. Disease Management Advisor 7:52-57, 2001.
119. Griffith, S.P.; Freeman, W.L.; Shaw, C.J.; et al.
Screening for diabetic retinopathy in a clinical setting: A comparison of
direct ophthalmoscopy by primary care physicians with
fundus photography. Journal of Family Practice
37(1):49-56, 1993.
120. Leese G.P.; Ahmed, S.;
Newton, R.W.; et al. Use of mobile screening unit for diabetic retinopathy in
rural and urban areas. British Medical Journal 306 (6871):187-189, 1993.
121. Lawrenson, R.A.; Dunn,
P.J.; Worsley, D.; et al. Discover diabetes: A
community based screening programme for diabetic eye
disease. New Zealand Medical Journal 107(977):172-174, 1994.
122. O’Hare, J.P.; Hopper, A.; Madhaven,
C.; et al. Adding retinal photography to screening for diabetic retinopathy: A
prospective study in primary care. British Medical Journal
312(7032):679-682, 1996.
123. Taylor, R. Practical community screening for diabetic
retinopathy using the mobile retinal camera: Report of a 12 centre study. Diabetic
Medicine 13(11):946-952, 1996.
124. McKenzie A., and Grylls, J.
Diabetic retinal photographic screening: a model for introducing audit and
improving general practitioner care of diabetic patients in a rural setting. Australian
Journal of Rural Health 7(4):237-239, 1999.
125. Cummings, D.M.; Morrissey, S.; Barondes,
M.J.; et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy in rural areas: The potential
of telemedicine. Journal of Rural Health 17:25-31, 2001.
126. Smith, L., and Weinert, C.
Telecommunication support for rural women with diabetes. Diabetes Educator
26:645-655, 2000.
127. Leichter, S.B.; Hernandez,
C.; Harvill, C.; et al. The Kentucky Diabetes Control
Program and the feasibility of the pyramidal model for public health
intervention in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Educator 14(3):218-222,
1988.
128. DeBry, S.M.; Smith, A.;
Wittenberg, M.; et al. Diabetes education project: Community networking in
rural Utah. Clinical Performance and Quality Health Care 4:104-106,
1996.
129. Brown, S.A., and Hanis,
C.L. A community-based, culturally sensitive education and group-support
intervention for Mexican Americans with NIDDM: A pilot study of efficacy. Diabetes
Educator 21:203-210, 1995.
130. Boulé, N.G.; Haddad, E.;
Kenny, G.P.; et al. Effects of exercise on glycemic
control and body mass in type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis of controlled
clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association
286(10):1218-1227, 2001.
131. ADA. Diabetes mellitus and exercise. Diabetes Care
25(Suppl 1):S64, 2002.
132. Glasgow, R.E.;
Ruggiero, L.; Eakin, E.G.; et al. Quality of life and
associated characteristics in a large national sample of adults with diabetes. Diabetes
Care 20(4):562-567, 1997.
133. Anonymous. California Senate Bill S.B. 1520. February
20, 2002.
134. Knapp, K.K.; Paavola, F.G.;
Maine, L.L.; et al. Availability of primary care providers and pharmacists in
the United States. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association
39(2):127-135, 1999.
135. Swain, J.H., and Macklin, R. Individualized diabetes
care in a rural community pharmacy. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical
Association 41:458-461, 2001.
136. Bureau of Primary Health Care. “Models that Work”
online database. Washington, DC: Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA), 2002. <http://bphc.hrsa.gov/mtw/def.htm>June
2002.
137. Economic costs of diabetes in the United States
in 2002. Report by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care
26:917-932, 2003.
Chapter Suggested Citation
Dabney, B., and Gosschalk, A. (2003). Diabetes in Rural Areas: A
Literature Review. Rural Healthy People 2010: A companion document to Healthy
People 2010. Volume 2. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System
Health Science Center, School of Rural Public Health, Southwest Rural Health
Research Center.
American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) provides
educational materials for diabetes educators and patients. It publishes a
highly respected diabetes education program, A Core Curriculum
for Diabetes Education.
100 West Monroe, 4th floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 424-2426
Fax: (312) 424-2427
Diabetes Educator Access Line:
1-800-TEAMUP4 (1-800-832-6874)
E-mail: aade@aadenet.org
Web Address: www.aadenet.org
American
Diabetes Association (ADA) is the largest private organization
for diabetes in the world. It provides information for health care workers and
the general public, and sponsors basic and applied research in diabetes causes
and treatment.
National Service Center
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
Phone: (703)
549-1500 (National Service Center), also 1-800-232-3472 or 1-800-DIABETES
(1-800-342-2383)
Fax: (703) 549-6995
E-mail: customerservice@diabetes.org
Web Address: www.diabetes.org
American
Dietetic Association (ADA) is a source of information on
general and diabetes-related nutrition. The ADA certifies dietitians in the U.S.
Some insurance companies require a registered dietitian to be involved in
diabetes patients’ nutrition programs, in order to be reimbursable. The ADA can
provide a list of registered dietitians in your area.
216 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60606-6995
Phone: (312) 899-0040
Fax: 1-800-899-1976
Web Address: www.eatright.org
Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation is the major focal point for the U.S. government’s activities in
translating the results of diabetes research into public health programs.
Mail Stop K-10
4770 Buford Highway, NE
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717
Phone: 1-877-CDC-DIAB
Fax: (301) 562-1050
E-mail: diabetes@cdc.gov
Web Address: www.cdc.gov/diabetes
The Diabetes Community Partnership Guide is
a 150-page step-by-step manual for communities and organizations to develop
diabetes education programs. Produced by the National Diabetes Education
Program, it is available at no cost from the NDEP (cf),
or at the website:
http://ndep.nih.gov/materials/pubs/community-guide/community-guide.htm
.
Indian Health
Service (IHS) is a major contact point for health care and
information about diabetes for the Native American communities.
Indian Health
Service National Diabetes Program
5300
Homestead Road, NE
Albuquerque,
NM 87110
Phone: (505)
248-4182 or (505) 248-4236
Fax: (505)
248-4188
Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation International (JDRF) sponsors research and education on juvenile (type 1) diabetes.
120 Wall
Street, 19th floor
New York, NY
10005
Phone:
1-800-533-2873 or (212) 785-9500
Fax: (212)
785-9595
E-mail: info@jdf.org
Web Address: www.jdf.org
National Certification
Board for Diabetes Educators (NCBDE) provides
certification of diabetes educators in the U.S. Many insurance companies
require a certified diabetes educator (CDE) to be involved in diabetes patient
education programs, in order to qualify for reimbursement. The NCBDE can
provide a list of CDEs in your area.
330 East Algonquin Road, Suite #4
Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Phone: (847) 228-9795
Fax: (847) 228-8469
Phone requests for exam applications: (913) 541-0400
E-mail: info@ncbde.org
Web Address: www.ncbde.org
The National Diabetes Education Program(NDEP)
is an extensive resource of literature, videotapes, and other guides for
individuals, health care providers, and communities. The NDEP is jointly
sponsored by the National Instititute for Diabetes,
Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and over 200 other organizations. It produces materials in English, Spanish,
and Asian languages. http://ndep.nih.gov/
National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NDIC), a service of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases (see above), provides free or low-cost information to health
care professionals and the general public.
1 Information Way
Bethesda, MD 20892-3560
Phone: 1-800-860-8747 or (301) 654-3327
Fax: (301) 907-8906
E-mail: ndic@info.niddk.nih.gov
Web Address: www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/diabetes.htm
National Eye
Institute (NEI), another branch of the National
Institutes of Health, provides information on diabetes-related eye diseases.
The NEI conducts the National Eye Health Education Program.
National Eye
Health Education Program (NEHEP)
Box 20/20
Bethesda, MD
20892-3655
Phone:
1-800-869-2020 (for health professionals only) or (301) 496-5248
Fax: (301)
402-1065
E-mail: 2020@nei.nih.gov
Web Address: www.nei.nih.gov
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Information Center publishes information on
cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, obesity, elevated cholesterol, and
other diabetes-related conditions.
P.O. Box 30105
Bethesda, MD 20824-0105
Phone: (301) 592-8573
Fax: (301) 592-8563
E-mail: NHLBIinfo@rover.nhlbi.nih.gov
Web Address: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/infoctr
National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) is one of the
National Institutes of Health, administered by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. NIDDK supports research in the causes and treatment of
diabetes, and also provides information to health care providers and the
general public. NIDDK also operates the National Diabetes Information
Clearinghouse http://www.niddk.nih.gov .
National Oral Health Information Clearinghouse
(NOHIC) is a service of the National Institute
of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NOHIC) at the National Institutes of
Health.
1 NOHIC Way
Bethesda, MD 20892-3500
Phone: (301) 402-7364
Fax: (301) 907-8830
E-mail: nohic@nidcr.nih.gov
Web Address: www.nohic.nidcr.nih.gov
Office of
Minority Health Resource Center (OMH-RC) is the largest central source of information, policy, and programs in
minority health. Many minority racial/ethnic groups (Hispanics, African
Americans, Native Americans, Asians) are at increased risk for diabetes.
P.O. Box 37337
Washington, DC 20013-7337
Phone: 1-800-444-6472
Fax: (301) 230-7198
State
Diabetes Control Programs. The CDC’s web site provides
information on diabetes control programs in all states, U.S. Territories, and
Island Jurisdictions. The site also lists contact information in each location,
and provides links to state laws on diabetes.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/states/#map
Veterans
Health Administration (VHA) provides information and
health services to veterans of U.S. military service. Some groups of veterans,
such as those from Operation Ranch Hand in the Vietnam War, have increased risk
for diabetes.
Program Chief, Diabetes
Veterans Health Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20420
Phone: (202) 273-8490
Fax: (202) 273-9142