Addressing type 1 diabetes health inequities in the United States: Approaches from the T1D Exchange QI Collaborative

Technology and health inequities in diabetes care: How do we widen access to underserved populations and utilize technology to improve outcomes for all?

Digital health technologies are being utilized increasingly in the modern management of diabetes. These include tools such as continuous glucose monitoring systems, connected blood glucose monitoring devices, hybrid closed-loop systems, smart insulin pens, telehealth, and smartphone applications (apps). Although many of these technologies have a solid evidence base, from the perspective of a person living with diabetes, there remain multiple barriers preventing their optimal use, creating a digital divide. In this article, we describe many of the origins of these barriers and offer recommendations on widening access to digital health technologies for underserved populations living with diabetes to improve their health outcomes.

Current Practices in Operationalizing and Addressing Racial Equity in the Provision of Type 1 Diabetes Care: Insights from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative Health Equity Advancement Lab

OBJECTIVE

Medical racism contributes to adverse health outcomes. Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) is a large population-based cohort engaged in data sharing and quality improvement to drive system changes in T1D care. The annual T1DX-QI survey included questions to evaluate racial equity in diabetes care and practices to promote equity.

METHODS

The annual T1DX-QI survey was administered to participating clinics in fall 2022 and had a 93% response rate. There were 50 responses (pediatric: 66% and adult: 34%). Questions, in part, evaluated clinical resources and racial equity. Response data were aggregated, summarized, and stratified by pediatric/adult institutions.

RESULTS

Only 21% pediatric and 35% adult institutions felt that all their team members can articulate how medical racism contributes to adverse diabetes outcomes. Pediatric institutions reported more strategies to address medical racism than adult (3.6 vs 3.1). Organizational strategies to decrease racial discrimination included employee trainings, equity offices/committees, patient resources, and hiring practices. Patient resources included interpreter services, transportation, insurance navigation, and housing and food assistance. Hiring practices included changing prior protocols, hiring from the community, and diversifying workforces. Most institutions have offered antiracism training in the last year (pediatric: 85% and adult: 72%) and annually (pediatric: 64% and adult: 56%). Pediatric teams felt that their antiracism training was effective more often (pediatric: 60% and adult: 45%) and more commonly, they were provided resources (pediatric: 67% and adult: 47%) to help address inequities.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased antiracism training, insufficient institutional support and perceived subeffective training still represent obstacles, especially in adult institutions. Sharing effective strategies to address medical racism will help institutions take steps to mitigate inequities.

Roadmap to Achieving Continuous Glucose Monitoring Equity: Insights From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative

This article describes successful interventions from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) to reduce inequities in access to and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The author proposes a roadmap with recommendations for different stakeholders to achieve CGM equity using insights from the T1DX-QI experience.

Longitudinal Trends in Glycemic Outcomes and Technology Use for Over 48,000 People with Type 1 Diabetes (2016-2022) from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative

Objective: Previous studies revealed that hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) increased overall in the United States in the past decade. In addition, health inequities in type 1 diabetes (T1D) outcomes by race/ethnicity and insurance type persist. This study examines the trends in HbA1c from 2016 to 2022 stratified by race/ethnicity and insurance in a large multicenter national database. Research Design and Methods: We analyzed glycemic outcomes and diabetes device use trends for >48,000 people living with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) from 3 adult and 12 pediatric centers in the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI), comparing data from 2016 to 2017 with data from 2021 to 2022. Results: The mean HbA1c in 2021-2022 was lower at 8.4% compared with the mean HbA1c in 2016-2017 of 8.7% (0.3% improvement; P < 0.01). Over the same period, the percentage of PwT1D using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), insulin pump, or hybrid closed-loop system increased (45%, 12%, and 33%, respectively). However, these improvements were not equitably demonstrated across racial/ethnic groups or insurance types. Racial/ethnic and insurance-based inequities persisted over all 7 years across all outcomes; comparing non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black PwT1D, disparate gaps in HbA1c (1.2%-1.6%), CGM (30%), pump (25%-35%), and hybrid-closed loop system (up to 20%) are illuminated. Conclusion: Population-level data on outcomes, including HbA1c, can provide trends and insights into strategies to improve health for PwT1D. The T1DX-QI cohort showed a significant improvement in HbA1c from 2016 to 2022. Improvements in diabetes device use are also demonstrated. However, these increases were inconsistent across all racial/ethnic groups or insurance types, an important focus for future T1D population health improvement work.

Insulin Pump Utilization in 2017-2021 for More Than 22,000 Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter Observational Study

This large type 1 diabetes cohort study showed that insulin pump utilization has increased over time and that use differs by sex, insurance type, and race/ethnicity. Insulin pump use was associated with more optimal A1C, increased use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and lower rates of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia. People who used an insulin pump with CGM had lower rates of acute events than their counterparts who used an insulin pump without CGM. These findings highlight the need to improve access of diabetes technology through provider engagement, multidisciplinary approaches, and efforts to address health inequities.

Interventions to address global inequity in diabetes: international progress

Diabetes is a serious chronic disease with high associated burden and disproportionate costs to communities based on socioeconomic, gender, racial, and ethnic status. Addressing the complex challenges of global inequity in diabetes will require intentional efforts to focus on broader social contexts and systems that supersede individual-level interventions. We codify and highlight best practice approaches to achieve equity in diabetes care and outcomes on a global scale. We outline action plans to target diabetes equity on the basis of the recommendations established by The Lancet Commission on Diabetes, organising interventions by their effect on changing the ecosystem, building capacity, or improving the clinical practice environment. We present international examples of how to address diabetes inequity in the real world to show that approaches addressing the individual within a larger social context, in addition to addressing structural inequity, hold the greatest promise for creating sustainable and equitable change that curbs the global diabetes crisis.

Racial Disparities in Technology Use in Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Parents' Perspectives

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to describe differences in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) parents' perceptions of factors that influence the use of diabetes technology.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with parents of NHB and NHW children at a pediatric diabetes center in the Northeast United States. Kilbourne's health disparities framework informed the focus group guide and a priori coding for directed content analysis. Further analysis allowed subcategories to emerge inductively.

RESULTS

Twenty-one parents participated. Five subcategories emerged, describing differences in NHB and NHW parent decisions regarding diabetes technology: (1) child's choice, (2) shame versus pride, (3) pros and cons of technology, (4) time frame, and (5) blood glucose indications of readiness. NHB parents feared technology malfunction, worried that visible devices could worsen experienced stigma of diabetes diagnosis, and described the diabetes team as gatekeepers, who changed eligibility criteria for diabetes technology use for their research purposes. In contrast, NHW parents reported diabetes team expectation of diabetes technology use and did not report provider-related barriers.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to existing literature advancing our understanding of the patient and provider mechanisms underlying racial disparities in diabetes technology use. This understanding may guide development of interventions focused on patients, providers, and structural factors to improve equity in use of diabetes technology by youth with type 1 diabetes.

Implicit Racial-Ethnic and Insurance-Mediated Bias to Recommending Diabetes Technology: Insights from T1D Exchange Multicenter Pediatric and Adult Diabetes Provider Cohort

Background: Despite documented benefits of diabetes technology in managing type 1 diabetes, inequities persist in the use of these devices. Provider bias may be a driver of inequities, but the evidence is limited. Therefore, we aimed to examine the role of race/ethnicity and insurance-mediated provider implicit bias in recommending diabetes technology. Method: We recruited 109 adult and pediatric diabetes providers across 7 U.S. endocrinology centers to complete an implicit bias assessment composed of a clinical vignette and ranking exercise. Providers were randomized to receive clinical vignettes with differing insurance and patient names as proxy for Racial-Ethnic identity. Bias was identified if providers: (1) recommended more technology for patients with an English name (Racial-Ethnic bias) or private insurance (insurance bias), or (2) Race/Ethnicity or insurance was ranked high (Racial-Ethnic and insurance bias, respectively) in recommending diabetes technology. Provider characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression. Result: Insurance-mediated implicit bias was common in our cohort (n = 66, 61%). Providers who were identified to have insurance-mediated bias had greater years in practice (5.3 ± 5.3 years vs. 9.3 ± 9 years, P = 0.006). Racial-Ethnic-mediated implicit bias was also observed in our study (n = 37, 34%). Compared with those without Racial-Ethnic bias, providers with Racial-Ethnic bias were more likely to state that they could recognize their own implicit bias (89% vs. 61%, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Provider implicit bias to recommend diabetes technology was observed based on insurance and Race/Ethnicity in our pediatric and adult diabetes provider cohort. These data raise the need to address provider implicit bias in diabetes care.

Making Diabetes Electronic Medical Record Data Actionable: Promoting Benchmarking and Population Health Improvement Using the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Portal

This article describes how the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative leverages an innovative web platform, the QI Portal, to gather and store electronic medical record (EMR) data to promote benchmarking and population health improvement in a type 1 diabetes learning health system. The authors explain the value of the QI Portal, the process for mapping center-level data from EMRs using standardized data specifications, and the QI Portal's unique features for advancing population health.

Achieving Equity in Diabetes Research: Borrowing From the Field of Quality Improvement Using a Practical Framework and Improvement Tools

There are limited tools to address equity in diabetes research and clinical trials. The T1D Exchange has established a 10-step equity framework to advance equity in diabetes research. Herein, the authors outline this approach and expand on its practical application.