IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Age and cohort rise in diabetes prevalence among older Australian women: Case ascertainment using survey and healthcare administrative data

Author

Listed:
  • Befikadu L Wubishet
  • Melissa L Harris
  • Peta M Forder
  • Julie E Byles

Abstract

Background: Due to the absence and or costliness of biological measures such as glycated haemoglobin, diabetes case ascertainment and prevalence studies are usually conducted using surveys or routine health service use databases. However, the use of each of these sources is associated with its limitations potentially impacting the quality of the case ascertainment and prevalence estimation. This study aimed at ascertaining diabetes cases and estimating prevalence among mid- and older-age women through simultaneous use of a longitudinal survey and multiple healthcare administrative data sources. Methods: Data were available for 12,432 and 13,714 women born in 1921–26 and 1946–51 from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH). Diabetes was ascertained using the ALSWH survey, health service use, and cause of death data. Parsimonious multiple logistic regression analyses tested associations between sociodemographic and health variables and the presence of diabetes. Results: In both cohorts, two or more of the sources captured more than 80% of the women with diabetes. The point prevalence of diabetes increased from 8.4% when the mean age of the women were aged 73, to 22.0% of surviving women at age 90 in the 1921–26 cohort; and from 2.6% at age 48 to 15.8% at age 68 in the 1946–51 cohort. In the 1921–26 cohort, women who were obese (OR: 3.56; 95 CI: 3.04–4.17) and women who were sedentary (OR: 1.18; 95 CI: 1.09–1.40) were more likely to have diabetes compared to those who had a normal weight and engaged in a moderate level of physical activity. In the 1946–51 cohort, the odds of diabetes increased three times (OR: 2.99; 95 CI: 2.54–3.52) for overweight women and nine times (OR: 8.78; 95 CI: 7.46–10.33) for obese women compared to those who had normal weight. Conclusions: The simultaneous use of multiple data sources improved the validity of diabetes case ascertainment. Application of this methodology in future studies may have important benefits including estimation of disease burden, health service needs, and resource allocation with improved precision. Diabetes prevalence increased with age, was much higher in the 1946–51 cohort than in 1921–26 at similar ages, and was significantly associated with physical inactivity and obesity. Interventions to promote physical activity and a healthy weight are needed to prevent the rising prevalence of diabetes across successive generations.

Suggested Citation

  • Befikadu L Wubishet & Melissa L Harris & Peta M Forder & Julie E Byles, 2020. "Age and cohort rise in diabetes prevalence among older Australian women: Case ascertainment using survey and healthcare administrative data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234812
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234812
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234812&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234812?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel J. Knott & Philip M. Clarke & Emma L. Heeley & John P. Chalmers, 2015. "Measuring the Progressivity of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 48(2), pages 122-132, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Law, Hsei Di & Marasinghe, Dinith & Butler, Danielle & Welsh, Jennifer & Lancsar, Emily & Banks, Emily & Biddle, Nicholas & Korda, Rosemary, 2023. "Progressivity of out-of-pocket costs under Australia's universal health care system: A national linked data study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 44-50.
    2. Hua, Xinyang & Erreygers, Guido & Chalmers, John & Laba, Tracey-Lea & Clarke, Philip, 2017. "Using administrative data to look at changes in the level and distribution of out-of-pocket medical expenditure: An example using Medicare data from Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 426-433.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.