{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Inequalities in Access to Diabetes Technologies in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter, Cross-sectional Study from Türkiye.
{Author}: Karakus KE;Sakarya S;Yıldırım R;Özalkak Ş;Özbek MN;Yıldırım N;Delibağ G;Eklioğlu BS;Haliloğlu B;Aydın M;Kırmızıbekmez H;Gökçe T;Can E;Eviz E;Yeşiltepe-Mutlu G;Hatun Ş;
{Journal}: J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jul 2
暂无{DOI}: 10.4274/jcrpe.galenos.2024.2024-4-6
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>To determine inequalities in access to diabetes technologies and the effect of socioeconomic factors on families with children with type 1 diabetes.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>In this multicenter cross-sectional study, parents of children with type 1 diabetes completed a questionnaire about household sociodemographic characteristics, latest HbA1c values, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump use of children, the education and working status of parents. These characteristics were compared between technology use (only-CGM, only-pump, CGM+pump, no technology use).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Among 882 families, only-CGM users, only-pump users, and CGM+pump users compared with no technology users, adjusting for age, sex, region, education levels, number of working parents, and household income. Children living in the least developed region had lower odds of having only-CGM (OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.12-0.34) and having CGM+pump (OR=0.07, 95%CI 0.03-0.22) compared with those living in the most developed region. Children with parents who had not finished high school had lower odds of having only-CGM (Mothers: OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.19-0.66; fathers: OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.18-0.60) or both CGM+pump (OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.11-0.64; fathers: OR=0.34, 95%CI 0.15-0.79) rather than no-technology compared to children whose parents has a university degree. Every $840 increase in the household income increased the odds by 5% for having only-CGM (OR=1.05, 95%CI 1.02-1.09) and CGM+pump (OR=1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.08).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Socioeconomic factors such as education, regions, and income were associated with inequality in access to technologies. The inequalities are more prominent in access to CGM while CGM had a bigger contribution to glycemic control.