↓ Skip to main content

Insurance-related disparities in primary care quality among U.S. Type 2 diabetes patients

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Insurance-related disparities in primary care quality among U.S. Type 2 diabetes patients
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0413-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

De-Chih Lee, Hailun Liang, Leiyu Shi

Abstract

This study explored insurance-related disparities in primary care quality among Americans with type 2 diabetes. Data came from the household component of the 2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Analysis focused on adult subjects with type 2 diabetes. Logistic regressions were performed to investigate the associations between insurance status and primary care attributes related to first contact, longitudinality, comprehensiveness, and coordination, while controlling for confounding factors. Preliminary findings revealed differences among three insurance groups in the first contact domain of primary care quality. After controlling for confounding factors, these differences were no longer apparent, with all insurance groups reporting similar primary care quality according to the four domains of interest in the study. There were significant differences in socioeconomic status among different insurance groups. This study reveals equitable primary care quality for diabetes patients despite their health insurance status. In addition to insurance-related differences, the other socioeconomic stratification factors are assumed to be the root cause of disparities in care. This research emphasizes the crucial role that primary care plays in the accessibility and quality of care for chronically ill patients. Policy makers should continue their commitment to reduce gaps in insurance coverage and improve access as well as quality of diabetic care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 23 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 24 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,811,816
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,646
of 1,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,076
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#33
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,912 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.