COVID-19 impacts and inequities among underserved communities with diabetes.

Background: People with diabetes have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. These risks are amplified for underserved communities including racial/ethnic minorities and people with lower socioeconomic status. However, limited research has examined COVID-19 outcomes specifically affecting underserved communities with diabetes. Methods: From November 2021 to July 2022, adults with insulin-requiring diabetes at federally qualified health centers in Florida and California (n = 450) completed surveys examining COVID-19 outcomes and demographics. Surveys assessed COVID-19 severity, vaccination uptake, mask-wearing habits, income changes, and healthcare access changes. Surveys also included the full Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS-19). Descriptive statistics were computed for all outcomes. Between-group comparisons for state and race/ethnicity were evaluated via Chi-Squared, Fisher's Exact, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, One-Way ANOVA, and t-tests. Logistic regression determined factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Data were self-reported and analyzed cross-sectionally. Results: Overall, 29.7 % reported contracting COVID-19; of those, 45.3 % sought care or were hospitalized. Most (81.3 %) received ≥ 1 vaccine. Hispanics had the highest vaccination rate (91.1 %); Non-Hispanic Blacks (NHBs) had the lowest (73.9 %; p =.0281). Hispanics had 4.63x greater vaccination odds than Non-Hispanic Whites ([NHWs]; 95 % CI = [1.81, 11.89]). NHWs least often wore masks (18.8 %; p <.001). Participants reported pandemic-related healthcare changes (62 %) and higher costs of diabetes medications (41 %). Income loss was more frequent in Florida (76 %; p <.001). NHBs most frequently reported "severe" income loss (26.4 %; p =.0124). Loss of health insurance was more common among NHBs (13.3 %; p =.0416) and in Florida (9.7 %; p =.039). COVID-19 anxiety was highest among NHBs and Hispanics (IQR = [0.0, 3.0]; p =.0232) and in Florida (IQR = [0.0, 2.0]; p =.0435). Conclusions: Underserved communities with diabetes had high COVID-19 vaccine uptake but experienced significant COVID-19-related physical, psychosocial, and financial impacts. NHBs and those in Florida had worse outcomes than other racial/ethnic groups and those in California. Further research, interventions, and policy changes are needed to promote health equity for this population.

Psychological Outcomes of the COVID-19 Pandemic on People with Type 1 Diabetes Globally: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) face heightened risks for morbidity and mortality from the 2019 Coronavirus (COVID-19). They also have elevated risks for disparate psychological outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, given their predisposition to mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression, and skyrocketing rates of these conditions among the general population. METHODS: To investigate the psychological ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with T1D globally, we conducted a scoping review of recent literature across eight online databases. Articles were screened via a rigorous process, and data pertaining to psychological outcomes were coded into thematic areas for analysis. RESULTS: Forty articles presenting data from 27 countries and 14 categories of psychological outcomes affecting people with T1D were included in this review. Psychological outcomes, in order of most to least frequently identified, included: stress, anxiety, social factors, worry, distress, fear, sleep habits, quality of life, depression, attitudes regarding COVID-19, other psychological issues, mental health services utilization, burnout, and temperament. Recurring findings demonstrated significant increases in the prevalence of mental health conditions, changes in sleeping habits, reductions of social support, and extensive psychosocial concerns among people with T1D. Associations between patients' psychological issues and demographic characteristics, diabetes self-management behaviors, glycemic control, and overall wellbeing were evident. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, people with T1D experienced pervasive psychological burdens. This review calls for further research examining the long-term impacts of the pandemic and strengthens awareness of the need for interventions to offset psychological challenges affecting people with T1D.

Tobacco-related health inequalities among Black Americans: A narrative review of structural and historical influences.

We conducted a narrative literature review to examine contributing factors of disparities in tobacco usage and outcomes affecting Black Americans. We propose potential solutions that can be used to effectively address these disparities. We identified historical factors; socioeconomic factors; targeted marketing/advertising; the influence of racism/discrimination; neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage; and mass incarceration. We call for more thorough examinations of these factors as a key element of tobacco-focused research and interventions to eliminate the disproportionate burdens faced by Black Americans. We advocate for greater emphases on the impacts of personal and structural racism on tobacco usage and outcomes affecting Black Americans.

The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence.

OBJECTIVE: Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. RESULTS: There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.

The Women's Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence.

Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field.We quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. There are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women comprised 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. Despite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.