Article Figures & Data
Tables
- Table 1.
Association Between Patient Characteristics and D5 Metric Among Mayo Clinic and MCHS Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, 2022
D5 Unmet
(n = 24,557)D5 Met
(n = 19,453)Total
(n = 44,010)P-value Age <0.0001* Mean (SD) 64.7 (13.60) 67.7 (13.66) 66.0 (13.71) ACG Risk score 0.7144* Mean (SD) 2.8 (3.06) 2.8 (2.91) 2.8 (3.00) Gender, n (%) 0.6660† Woman 11,187 (55.9%) 8,812 (44.1%) 19,999 (45.4%) Man 13,369 (55.7%) 10,639 (44.3%) 24,008 (54.6%) Nonbinary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 2 (0.0%) Unknown 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%) 1 (0.0%) Race, n (%) <0.0001† American Indian/Alaskan Native 135 (64.0%) 76 (36.0%) 211 (0.5%) Asian 609 (57.0%) 460 (43.0%) 1,069 (2.4%) Black 760 (68.3%) 352 (31.7%) 1,112 (2.5%) Other 287 (65.5%) 151 (34.5%) 438 (1.0%) Pacific Islander 33 (51.6%) 31 (48.4%) 64 (0.1%) Unknown 215 (61.8%) 133 (38.2%) 348 (0.8%) White 22,518 (55.2%) 18,250 (44.8%) 40,768 (92.6%) Insurance type, n (%) <0.0001† Commercial 5,972 (58.9%) 4,171 (41.1%) 10,143 (23.0%) Government 16,573 (54.7%) 13,732 (45.3%) 30,305 (68.9%) Mayo insured 1,715 (54.4%) 1,439 (45.6%) 3,154 (7.2%) Unknown 297 (72.8%) 111 (27.2%) 408 (0.9%) Outpatient visits 2022 <0.0001* Mean (SD) 3.4 (4.96) 3.7 (5.50) 3.5 (5.21) Practice region, n (%) 0.0166† A 5,693 (54.6%) 4,731 (45.4%) 10,424 (23.7%) B 5,295 (55.5%) 4,251 (44.5%) 9,546 (21.7%) C 6,293 (56.9%) 4,769 (43.1%) 11,062 (25.1%) D 3,507 (56.0%) 2,760 (44.0%) 6,267 (14.2%) E 3,769 (56.2%) 2,942 (43.8%) 6,711 (15.2%) Urban/rural, n (%) 0.037† Urban 11,580 (55.3%) 9,368 (44.7%) 20,948 (47.6%) Rural 12,973 (56.3%) 10,084 (43.7%) 23,057 (52.4%) Missing 4 1 5 ↵*Kruskal-Wallis P-value; †Chi-Square p-value.
Percentages were calculated by row.
Abbreviation: SD, Standard deviation.
- Table 2.
Association Between Social Risk Variables and D5 Metric Among Mayo Clinic and MCHS Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, 2022
D5 Unmet
(n = 24,557)D5 Met
(n = 19,453)Total
(n = 44,010)P-value Housing stability risk, n (%) <0.0001* At risk 1,675 (12.0%) 891 (7.3%) 2,566 (9.8%) Not at risk 12,331 (88.0%) 11,321 (92.7%) 23,652 (90.2%) Missing 10,551 7,241 17,792 Financial strain risk, n (%) <0.0001* High risk 955 (6.3%) 446 (3.4%) 1,401 (4.9%) Medium risk 2,292 (15.0%) 1,429 (10.8%) 3,721 (13.1%) Low risk 11,988 (78.7%) 11,305 (85.8%) 23,293 (82.0%) Missing 9,322 6,273 15,595 Food insecurity, n (%) <0.0001* At risk 1,761 (11.9%) 861 (6.7%) 2,622 (9.5%) Not at risk 13,036 (88.1%) 12,006 (93.3%) 25,042 (90.5%) Missing 9,760 6,586 16,346 Transportation needs, n (%) <0.0001* Unmet needs 848 (5.5%) 400 (3.0%) 1,248 (4.3%) No needs 14,588 (94.5%) 12,958 (97.0%) 27,546 (95.7%) Missing 9,121 6,095 15,216 Intimate partner violence, n (%) 0.0003* At risk 398 (2.7%) 260 (2.1%) 658 (2.4%) Not at risk 14,176 (97.3%) 12,422 (97.9%) 26,598 (97.6%) Missing 9,983 6,771 16,754 *Chi-Square P-value.
- Table 3.
Logistic Regression Model Association of Patient-Reported Social Risk with Likelihood of Meeting D5 Metric Outcome Among Mayo Clinic and MCHS Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, 2022
Univariate Logistic Regression Multiple Logistic Regression† Social Risk Variable* Odds Ratio (95% CI) P-value Odds Ratio (95% CI) P-value Housing risk At Risk vs Not at Risk†† 0.58 (0.53, 0.63) <0.001 0.68 (0.62, 0.74) <0.001 Financial strain risk High Risk vs Low Risk†† 0.50 (0.44, 0.56) <0.001 0.60 (0.53, 0.68) <0.001 Medium Risk vs Low Risk†† 0.66 (0.62, 0.71) <0.001 0.74 (0.69, 0.79) <0.001 Food insecurity At Risk vs Not at Risk†† 0.53 (0.49, 0.58) <0.001 0.64 (0.59, 0.70) <0.001 Transportation needs Unmet Needs vs Met Needs†† 0.53 (0.47, 0.60) <0.001 0.62 (0.55, 0.70) <0.001 Intimate partner violence At Risk vs Not at Risk†† 0.75 (0.64, 0.87) <0.001 0.88 (0.75, 1.04) 0.123 ↵*Separate models were run for each social risk variable with an outcome of meeting the D5 metric.
↵†Adjusted for age, gender, race, campus/location, rurality, insurance, ACG complexity score, utilization (total family medicine outpatient visits in last year).
↵†† Reference group, Odds Ratio = 1.
Abbreviation: CI, Class interval.
Social Risk Variables Housing Risk Financial Risk Food Insecurity Transportation Needs IPV Risk Housing risk — 0.388 0.374 0.215 0.115 Financial risk 0.388 — 0.603 0.287 0.155 Food insecurity 0.374 0.603 — 0.302 0.140 Transportation 0.215 0.287 0.302 — 0.122 IPV risk 0.115 0.155 0.140 0.122 — Cramer’s V > 0.3 is considered highly correlated.
Abbreviation: IPV, Intimate Partner Violence.
