Article Text

Inequalities in glycemic management in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus and severe mental illnesses: cohort study from the UK over 10 years
  1. Jayati Das-Munshi1,2,3,
  2. Peter Schofield4,
  3. Mark Ashworth4,
  4. Fiona Gaughran2,5,
  5. Sally Hull6,
  6. Khalida Ismail1,2,
  7. John Robson6,
  8. Robert Stewart1,2,
  9. Rohini Mathur6,7
  1. 1Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), London, UK
  2. 2South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Trust, London, UK
  3. 3ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King’s College London, London, UK
  4. 4School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine (FOLSM), London, UK
  5. 5Department of Psychosis Studies, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), London, UK
  6. 6Clinical Effectiveness Group, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
  7. 7Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jayati Das-Munshi; jayati.das-munshi{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Using data from a a primary care pay-for-performance scheme targeting quality indicators, the objective of this study was to assess if people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illnesses (SMI) experienced poorer glycemic management compared with people living with T2DM alone, and if observed differences varied by race/ethnicity, deprivation, gender, or exclusion from the scheme.

Research design and methods Primary care data from a cohort of 56 770 people with T2DM, including 2272 people with T2DM and SMI, from London (UK), diagnosed between January 17, 2008 and January 16, 2018, were used. Adjusted mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and HbA1c differences were assessed using multilevel regression models.

Results Compared with people with T2DM only, people with T2DM/SMI were more likely to be of an ethnic minority background, excluded from the pay-for-performance scheme and residing in more deprived areas. Across the sample, mean HbA1c was lower in those with T2DM and SMI (mean HbA1c: 58 mmol/mol; 95% CI 57 to 59), compared with people with T2DM only (mean HbA1c: 59 mmol/mol; 95% CI 59 to 60). However, HbA1c levels were greater in Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese people compared with the White British reference in the T2DM/SMI group. People with T2DM/SMI who had been excluded from the pay-for-performance scheme, had HbA1c levels which were +7 mmol/mol (95% CI 2 to 11) greater than those with T2DM/SMI not excluded. Irrespective of SMI status, increasing deprivation and male gender were associated with increased HbA1c levels.

Conclusions Despite a pay-for-performance scheme to improve quality standards, inequalities in glycemic management in people with T2DM and SMI persist in those excluded from the scheme and by gender, ethnicity, and area-level deprivation.

  • schizophrenia
  • diabetes mellitus
  • type 2
  • epidemiology
  • glycated hemoglobin A

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Data for this study are deidentified participant data. Data are not publicly available. Inquiries for data use should be directed to the authors and may be available subject to appropriate approvals.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Data for this study are deidentified participant data. Data are not publicly available. Inquiries for data use should be directed to the authors and may be available subject to appropriate approvals.

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Contributors JD-M conceived of the study and led all analyses. All authors were involved in the study design. RM was responsible for data acquisition. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data and drafting of the work as well as revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. JD-M is the guarantor for all analyses.

  • Funding JD-M is part-supported by the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London (ESRC Reference: ES/S012567/1), grants from the ESRC (ES/S002715/1), by the Health Foundation working together with the Academy of Medical Sciences, for a Clinician Scientist Fellowship, and by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London (ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. FG is in part supported by the NIHR's Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, the Maudsley Charity and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London (ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. RS is part-funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London; a Medical Research Council (MRC) Mental Health Data Pathfinder Award to King’s College London; an NIHR Senior Investigator Award; and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London (ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. PS is part funded by an MRC research grant (MRC Reference MR/S025510/1). KI is funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. RM is funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Postdoctoral Fellowship (201375/Z/16/Z).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ESRC, NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or King’s College London.

  • Competing interests FG has received support or honoraria from Lundbeck, Otsuka, and Sunovion, and has a family member with previous professional links to Lilly and GSK. RS has received research support in the last 3 years from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. RM has received consulting fees from AMGEN.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.