Association of a housing based individual socioeconomic status measure with diabetic control in primary care practices

Published:November 19, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2021.10.001

      Highlights

      • HOUSES is a validated housing-based individual-level socioeconomic status measure.
      • The lowest quartile of HOUSES is associated with lower rates of diabetic control.
      • HOUSES identifies patients at risk for poor diabetic control and may allow targeted interventions.

      Abstract

      Aims

      Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important variable that impacts healthcare outcomes. However, grouped SES data is not always representative of all members and it is difficult to obtain individual level data. A validated individual housing-based measure termed HOUSES is available, but has not been studied in diabetes. We hypothesize that patients in the lowest HOUSES quartile are associated with worse diabetic control as measured by the D5.

      Methods

      A retrospective cohort study of 5463 patients with diabetes in 5 patient centered medical home practices in southeast Minnesota was conducted. HOUSES is a validated, standardized housing-based SES measure constructed from publicly available county assessor’s office data. Diabetic control was assessed by the D5 (HgbA1c < 8, BP < 140/90, statin use, nonsmoking status, and antiplatelet therapy).

      Results

      In the lowest HOUSES quartile, more patients had an uncontrolled D5 (56.4%) than any of the other quartiles (49.2%, 49.8%, 49.6% respectively, p < 0.001). A multivariate analysis shows the adjusted odds of D5 control for patients in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th HOUSES quartiles as opposed to the 1st quartile are 1.28, 1.21, and 1.20, respectively.

      Conclusion

      Lower SES as represented by the first quartile of HOUSES index, is associated with lower odds of D5 control and thus worse diabetic outcomes. Using the HOUSES index to identify these individuals in a patient centered medical home might prove useful in deciding where to focus diabetic control efforts.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Primary Care Diabetes
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        U.S.D.o.H.a.H. Services National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA2020
        • Zhuo X.
        • et al.
        The lifetime cost of diabetes and its implications for diabetes prevention.
        Diabetes Care. 2014; 37: 2557-2564
        • Mackenbach J.P.
        • et al.
        Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2008; 358: 2468-2481
        • Dunn J.R.
        • Hayes M.V.
        Social inequality, population health, and housing: a study of two Vancouver neighborhoods.
        Soc. Sci. Med. 2000; 51: 563-587
        • Maty S.C.
        • James S.A.
        • Kaplan G.A.
        Life-course socioeconomic position and incidence of diabetes mellitus among blacks and whites: the Alameda County Study, 1965-1999.
        Am. J. Public Health. 2010; 100: 137-145
        • Gaskin D.J.
        • et al.
        Disparities in diabetes: the nexus of race, poverty, and place.
        Am. J. Public Health. 2014; 104: 2147-2155
        • Barnes J.A.
        • et al.
        Epidemiology and risk of amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral artery disease.
        Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2020; 40: 1808-1817
        • Baker E.H.
        Socioeconomic status, definition.
        The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society. 2014: 2210-2214
        • Turrell G.
        Income non-reporting: implications for health inequalities research.
        J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2000; 54: 207-214
        • Tourangeau R.
        • Yan T.
        Sensitive questions in surveys.
        Psychol. Bull. 2007; 133: 859-883
        • Krieger N.
        • et al.
        Zip code caveat: bias due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and US census-defined geographic areas—the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project.
        Am. J. Public Health. 2002; 92: 1100-1102
        • Juhn Y.J.
        • et al.
        Development and initial testing of a new socioeconomic status measure based on housing data.
        J. Urban Health. 2011; 88: 933-944
        • Bang D.W.
        • et al.
        A novel socioeconomic measure using individual housing data in cardiovascular outcome research.
        Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2014; 11: 11597-11615
        • Takahashi P.Y.
        • et al.
        A novel housing-based socioeconomic measure predicts hospitalisation and multiple chronic conditions in a community population.
        J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2016; 70: 286-291
        • Ghawi H.
        • et al.
        A novel measure of socioeconomic status using individual housing data to assess the association of SES with rheumatoid arthritis and its mortality: a population-based case-control study.
        BMJ Open. 2015; 5e006469
        • Wi C.I.
        • et al.
        Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health disparities in a mixed rural-urban US community-Olmsted County, Minnesota.
        Mayo Clin. Proc. 2016; 91: 612-622
        • Stevens M.A.
        • et al.
        HOUSES index as an innovative socioeconomic measure predicts graft failure among kidney transplant recipients.
        Transplantation. 2020; 104: 2383-2392
        • Harris M.N.
        • et al.
        Application of a novel socioeconomic measure using individual housing data in asthma research: an exploratory study.
        NPJ Prim. Care Respir. Med. 2014; 24: 14018
        • Johnson M.D.
        • et al.
        Housing data-based socioeconomic index and risk of invasive pneumococcal disease: an exploratory study.
        Epidemiol. Infect. 2013; 141: 880-887
      1. The D5 for Diabetes.
        2014 ([Cited 11 May 2016]. Available from:)
        • Takahashi P.Y.
        • et al.
        Health outcomes in diabetics measured with Minnesota Community Measurement quality metrics.
        Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2015; 8: 1-8
        • Dilger B.T.
        • et al.
        Visit entropy associated with diabetic control outcomes.
        J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2019; 32: 739-745
        • United States Census Bureau
        QuickFacts: Olmsted County, Minnesota.
        (9/21/2020; Available from:)2020
        • American Diabetes Association
        Standards of medical care in diabetes-2018 abridged for primary care providers.
        Clin. Diabetes. 2018; 36: 14-37
        • R Core Team
        R: A Language and Enviroment for Statistical Computing.
        R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2013
        • Huang E.S.
        • et al.
        Glycemic control, complications, and death in older diabetic patients: the diabetes and aging study.
        Diabetes Care. 2011; 34: 1329-1336
        • Garrison G.M.
        • Dilger B.T.
        Quantifying organization of care in a complex healthcare environment.
        J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2020; 26: 1548-1551
        • Rodbard D.
        Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes.
        Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2017; 19: S25-S37
        • Vaughan E.M.
        • et al.
        A narrative review of diabetes group visits in low-income and underserved settings.
        Curr. Diabetes Rev. 2019; 15: 372-381
        • Steinsbekk A.
        • et al.
        Group based diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review with meta-analysis.
        BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012; 12: 213
        • Menon K.
        • et al.
        Shared medical appointments may Be effective for improving clinical and behavioral outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.
        Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2017; 8: 263
        • Keers J.C.
        • et al.
        Cost and benefits of a multidisciplinary intensive diabetes education programme.
        J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2005; 11: 293-303
        • Powell A.A.
        • et al.
        Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local practice.
        J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2012; 27: 405-412
        • Lantz P.M.
        • et al.
        Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults.
        JAMA. 1998; 279: 1703-1708
        • Nandi A.
        • Glymour M.M.
        • Subramanian S.V.
        Association among socioeconomic status, health behaviors, and all-cause mortality in the United States.
        Epidemiology. 2014; 25: 170-177
        • Sturmberg J.P.
        • Martin C.M.
        • Katerndahl D.A.
        It is complicated! — misunderstanding the complexities of ‘complex’.
        J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2017; 23: 426-429
        • Sturmberg J.P.
        Embracing complexity in health and health care—translating a way of thinking into a way of acting.
        J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2018; 24: 598-599
        • Sturmberg J.P.
        • et al.
        ‘Multimorbidity’ as the manifestation of network disturbances.
        J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2017; 23: 199-208
        • Group A.S.C.
        • et al.
        Effects of aspirin for primary prevention in persons with diabetes mellitus.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2018; 379: 1529-1539
        • American Diabetes A.
        10. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: standards of medical care in Diabetes-2019.
        Diabetes Care. 2019; 42: S103-S123