Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Scientific Review

Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review

  1. Felicia Hill-Briggs1,2⇑,
  2. Nancy E. Adler3,
  3. Seth A. Berkowitz4,
  4. Marshall H. Chin5,
  5. Tiffany L. Gary-Webb6,
  6. Ana Navas-Acien7,
  7. Pamela L. Thornton8 and
  8. Debra Haire-Joshu9
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  2. 2Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD
  3. 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  4. 4Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
  5. 5Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
  6. 6Departments of Epidemiology and Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
  7. 7Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY
  8. 8National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
  9. 9The Brown School and The School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
  1. Corresponding author: Felicia Hill-Briggs, fbriggs3{at}jhmi.edu
Diabetes Care 2021 Jan; 44(1): 258-279. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0053
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Introduction

Decades of research have demonstrated that diabetes affects racial and ethnic minority and low-income adult populations in the U.S. disproportionately, with relatively intractable patterns seen in these populations’ higher risk of diabetes and rates of diabetes complications and mortality (1). With a health care shift toward greater emphasis on population health outcomes and value-based care, social determinants of health (SDOH) have risen to the forefront as essential intervention targets to achieve health equity (2–4). Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted unequal vulnerabilities borne by racial and ethnic minority groups and by disadvantaged communities. In the wake of concurrent pandemic and racial injustice events in the U.S., the American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Society of General Internal Medicine, National Academy of Medicine, and other professional organizations have published statements on SDOH (5–8), and calls to action focus on amelioration of these determinants at individual, organizational, and policy levels (9–11).

In diabetes, understanding and mitigating the impact of SDOH are priorities due to disease prevalence, economic costs, and disproportionate population burden (12–14). In 2013, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published a scientific statement on socioecological determinants of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (15). Toward the goal ofunderstanding and advancing opportunities for health improvement among the population with diabetes through addressing SDOH, ADA convened the current SDOH and diabetes writing committee, prepandemic, to review the literature on 1) associations of SDOH with diabetes risk and outcomes and 2) impact of interventions targeting amelioration of SDOH on diabetes outcomes. This article begins with an overview of key definitions and SDOH frameworks. The literature review focuses primarily on U.S.-based studies of adults with diabetes and on five SDOH: socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation); neighborhood and physical environment (housing, built environment, toxic environmental exposures); food environment (food insecurity, food access); health care (access, affordability, quality); and social context (social cohesion, social capital, social support). This review concludes with recommendations for linkages across health care and community sectors from national advisory committees, recommendations for diabetes research, and recommendations for research to inform practice.

Definitions of Health Disparities, Health Equity, and SDOH

Table 1 displays definitions of key terms. Differences in diabetes risk and outcomes can result from multiple contributors, including biological, clinical, and nonclinical factors (1). A substantial body of scientific literature demonstrates the adverse impact of a particular type of difference, health disparities (16) in diabetes (1,17,18). A preponderance of health disparities research in the U.S. has examined disparities by race and ethnicity (3,19). Internationally, the term health equity has traditionally been used to encompass the range of population inequalities resulting from demographic and economic characteristics, and this term is used increasingly in the U.S. (20–24). Addressing healthy equity necessitates an understanding of social and environmental factors that combined account for 50% to 60% of health outcomes (22,25). These social and environmental factors collectively are known as SDOH (21,26,27).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Definitions

SDOH Nomenclatures and Contextual Factors

The writing committee reviewed the following commonly referenced SDOH frameworks for classifications and terminology: the World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants of Health (28), Healthy People 2020 (29,30), the County Health Rankings Model (31,32), and Kaiser Family Foundation Social Determinants of Health factors (33).

No single consensus set of factors define SDOH. Nomenclatures used by each framework, for shared SDOH factors, are depicted in Fig. 1. Common among the frameworks is placement of economic and socioeconomic determinants as foremost. Food SDOH factors (e.g., insecurity and access) are classified as economic stability (29), neighborhood and built environment (29), material circumstances (28), or as an independent category (33). Housing is classified as material circumstances (28), economic stability (29), or neighborhood and built environment (33). Environmental exposures (i.e., toxins, air pollution, and water quality) are classified as neighborhood and physical environment (31) or built environment (29). Social environment is represented as community and societal context (29,33), social cohesion and social capital (28), or social factors (31). Health care is a SDOH in the WHO, Healthy People 2020, and County Health Rankings models, with access factors as primary, with or without quality of care factors.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Nomenclatures for shared determinants among four social determinants of health frameworks, the World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2020, the County Health Rankings Model, and the Kaiser Family Foundation Social Determinants of Health framework.

Each framework posits complex interactions among SDOH factors. WHO additionally maps causal priority among the determinants. For example, the upstream sociopolitical context and resulting socioeconomic position are root cause, structural determinants of health inequities that work through intermediary sets of determinants to cause health inequities. WHO positions the health system as an SDOH that plays a role in mediating impact of intermediary determinants on health outcomes (28).

Review of SDOH and Diabetes

SDOH inclusion in this review was determined by representation within one or more existing SDOH frameworks and presence of a sufficient body of literature to demonstrate influence of the determinant on diabetes. The reviewed SDOH are shown in Table 2. Studies of primarily adult populations are described, and the terms type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and “diabetes” (indicating either a mixed T2DM and T1DM sample or diabetes case ascertainment methods that do not enable specifying clinical diagnostic type) are used in accordance with the terminology used in the respective studies.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

SDOH and component factors included in the diabetes review

Socioeconomic Status and Diabetes

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a multidimensional construct that includes educational, economic, and occupational status (34–36). SES is a consistently strong predictor of disease onset and progression at all levels of SES for many diseases, including diabetes (37). SES is linked to virtually all of the established SDOH. It is associated with the extent to which individuals and communities can access material resources including health care, housing, transportation, and nutritious food and social resources such as political power, social engagement, and control.

The three components of SES are intercorrelated (38), but each aspect has unique implications for health. Each component can be assessed at the individual or population level (39). For example, economic status is often measured by determining a person’s own income. However, it is also assessed by the income of the household in which the person resides and by the income level of the community (e.g., mean household income of the census track in which a person resides) as a proxy for the individual’s household income. Census-level household income also operates as a contextual variable, reflecting the composition and available resources in a defined area.

Educational status can be quantified either in years of schooling or highest degree earned. It may be assessed at the level of the individual (e.g., the person’s own educational attainment), the household (the highest grade completed by anyone in the household), or the community (e.g., percent of high school or college graduates in a census track). Quantity of education does not capture differences in quality of education that may be relevant to SES measurement (38). Literacy has emerged as a measure of educational quality and as potentially more reflective of SES than years of schooling among African Americans and low-income Whites (40,41). Health literacy, which is directly associated with literacy and is context specific (42–44), and literacy are included as SDOH in Healthy People 2020 (29).

Occupation is itself multidimensional. It has been measured as employment status (e.g., employed vs. unemployed), stability (e.g., job insecurity), job type (e.g., manual vs. nonmanual, prestige of the occupation), and working conditions (e.g., shift work, number of hours worked, job demands, and control) (39,45). For members of large organizations, occupational hierarchies of job titles capture work conditions as well as qualifications and pay (e.g., civil service grades).

Associations of SES With Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes

Income, education, and occupation show a graded association with diabetes prevalence and complications across all levels of SES, up to the very top. Those lower on the SES ladder are more likely to develop T2DM, experience more complications, and die sooner than those higher up on the SES ladder (46,47). The higher a person’s income, the greater their educational attainment, and the higher their occupational grade, the less likely they are to develop T2DM or to experience its complications. The gradient is steeper at the bottom, however, and research has focused primarily on those with the lowest levels of income and education.

Income.

Prevalence of diabetes increases on a gradient from highest to lowest income (48,49). In data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) covering 2011–2014, Beckles and Chou (50) found increasing diabetes prevalence at lower levels of income as reflected in the levels of ratio of income to poverty level. Compared with those with high income, the relative percentage difference in prevalence of diabetes for those classified as middle income, near poor, and poor, was 40.0%, 74.1%, and 100.4%, respectively. The difference in diabetes prevalence by income was greater during this time period than it had been in a prior period (1999–2002), pointing to widening disparities in diabetes prevalence associated with income.

At the neighborhood level, differences in diabetes prevalence by census track are attributable to SES (51,52). For example, in a recent study by Kolak et al. (52), rate of T2DM was found to be significantly higher and concentrated in census tracts characterized by factors including lower incomes, lower high school graduation rates, more single-parent households, and crowded housing. Living in neighborhood census tracts with lower educational attainment, lower annual income, and larger percentage of households receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits has been associated with higher risk of progression to T2DM among adults with prediabetes (53).

Gaskin et al. (49) examined the interaction of individual poverty with neighborhood poverty and found that, compared with nonpoor adults living in nonpoor neighborhoods, poor adults living in nonpoor neighborhoods have increased odds of having diabetes, and poor adults living in poor neighborhoods have twofold higher odds of having diabetes. In addition, a race-poverty-place gradient was observed. Compared with nonpoor Whites in nonpoor neighborhoods, odds of diabetes were highest for poor Whites in poor neighborhoods (odds ratio [OR] 2.51, 95% CI = 1.31–4.81), followed by poor Blacks in poor neighborhoods and nonpoor Blacks in poor neighborhoods (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.50–4.01, and OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.48–4.19), and finally poor Whites in nonpoor neighborhoods (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.16–2.57) (49).

Adults with T2DM who have a family income below the federal poverty level have a twofold higher risk of diabetes-related mortality compared with their counterparts in the highest family income levels (54). This pattern of diabetes-related mortality has been observed specifically in adults with T1DM as well (55). A meta-analysis by Bijlsma-Rutte et al. (56) observed an inverse association between income and HbA1c levels in people with T2DM, with a pooled mean difference in HbA1c of 0.20% (95% CI −0.05 to 0.46) between people with low and high income. Low income is associated with a higher risk of experiencing diabetic ketoacidosis among youth and adults with T1DM (57) and with higher HbA1c levels, particularly among racial/ethnic minority youth with lower SES (58,59).

Education.

Age-adjusted incidence of diagnosed diabetes in adults is associated also with educational level in a stepwise pattern. Diabetes incidence is highest (10.4 per 1,000 persons) for adults with less than a high school education, 7.8 per 1,000 persons for those with a terminal high school education, and 5.3 per 1,000 persons for those with more than a high school education (60). Diabetes prevalence in the adult U.S. population is similarly inversely associated with educational level in a stepwise pattern. In the U.S., the age-adjusted prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is 12.6% for those with less than a high school education, 9.5% for those with a high school education, and 7.2% for those with more than a high school education (61). Having a college education or more is associated with the lowest odds of diabetes (62). Mirroring findings on income, temporal trends in diabetes prevalence at different levels of education show increasing disparities in prevalence associated with educational attainment (50).

The risk of diabetes-related mortality demonstrates a gradient from lowest to highest education level. Compared with adults with a college degree or higher, having less than high school education is associated with a twofold higher mortality from diabetes (relative hazard 2.05, 95% CI 1.78–2.35) (54). In adults with T1DM, not having a college degree is associated with a threefold higher mortality from diabetes compared with counterparts with a college degree (63). Lower educational level is associated with higher HbA1c, with a meta-analysis (56) reporting a pooled mean difference in HbA1c of 0.26% (95% CI, 0.09–0.43) between people with low and high educational levels. Regarding literacy/health literacy as a SDOH, Marciano et al. (64) conducted a meta-analysis of 61 studies of 18,905 adults with T1DM or T2DM to determine associations of health literacy with several diabetes outcomes and found that higher levels of health literacy were significantly associated with lower HbA1c levels and better diabetes knowledge, but not with more frequent self-management activities.

Occupation.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined several aspects of occupation in relation to diabetes risk, although most of this research has been conducted outside of the U.S. Ferrie et al. (65) conducted a meta-analysis of associations of job insecurity with incident diabetes and found an association of high job insecurity with higher risk of incident diabetes (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09–1.30). A meta-analysis by Varanka-Ruuska et al. (66) found that unemployment was associated with increased odds of both prediabetes (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.07–2.35) and T2DM (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.14–2.58). Exposure to shift work is associated with higher risk of diabetes than working normal daytime schedules (67). A meta-analysis by Kivimäki et al. (68) reported an association of long work hours (≥55 h per week) as compared with standard work hours (35–40 h per week) with higher incident diabetes in adults with low SES but not in adults with high SES. A U.S. population-based survey on diabetes and occupation found highest prevalence of diabetes among transportation workers and lowest prevalence of diabetes among physicians (69,70).

SES Interventions and Diabetes Outcomes

To date, there is no body of literature describing impact of change in income, change to higher educational status, or different employment/occupational status on diabetes outcomes, although income and wage changes, and job changes and loss, do occur naturalistically. Similarly, no diabetes outcomes have been reported from interventions directly targeting living wages, early childhood education, educational quality, or educational access for poor children and families. Studies have examined diabetes self-management interventions in the setting of low literacy/health literacy, particularly among racial/ethnic minority adults with T2DM and have demonstrated effectiveness of low-literacy adaptions (71) and health literacy and numeracy tools in improving diabetes knowledge and self-care (72–74). A meta‐analysis of nine intervention trials with 1,874 adults with T2DM found that literacy-sensitive interventions were associated with a small but statistically significant decrease in HbA1c (–0.18%; 95% CI –0.36 to –0.004) in comparison with usual clinical care (75) in patients regardless of health literacy status. Literacy-adapted education and tools may need to be combined with more comprehensive evidence-based behavioral self-management intervention approaches to achieve substantive clinical improvements in racial/ethnic minority populations with T2DM and low literacy/health literacy (76,77). In conclusion, despite the long-standing evidence for SES as a key determinant both of diabetes risk and outcomes, systematic investigation of impact on diabetes of change in SES remains a gap in the literature.

Neighborhood and Physical Environment and Diabetes

The neighborhood environment in which one lives has been of major interest as a setting in which to understand contextual and multilevel influences on health (78). Diez Roux and Mair (78) have described the role of historical and contemporary residential segregation by race, ethnicity, and SES as the socioeconomic and political context that produced the patterns of unequal resource distribution resulting in neighborhood environments that maintain health inequities. Tung et al. (79) also discuss the multiple intricacies associated with how race, place, and poverty converge in a dynamic way across various spatial contexts and circumstances to influence health and propose that understanding the intersection of these contextual influences is needed to prevent diabetes inequities. Neighborhood and physical environment factors of housing, built environment, and environmental exposures are reviewed.

Housing

Stable housing is a key indicator of economic stability (80) and a core SDOH (80). Housing instability refers to a spectrum of situations that can range from living in one’s car, staying with relatives or friends, having trouble paying rent, suffering evictions or frequent moves, paying more than 50% of income in rent, and living in crowded conditions (historically defined as having more than one person per room) to homelessness—the most extreme form of unstable housing (81–85). Homelessness is defined as “lacking a regular nighttime residence or having a primary nighttime residence that is a temporary shelter or other place not designed for sleeping” (86). As of 2020, the U.S. government reported 567,715 or 17 of 10,000 people in the country are homeless; African Americans accounted for 40% of people experiencing homelessness, while those identifying as Hispanic or Latino comprised 22% of the homeless population (87). A common theme in conceptual models linking housing instability to poor health is that the instability inherent to the situation makes it difficult to attend to preventive services and self-care (83,88–90), leading to worse control of chronic conditions, higher use of acute-care services like emergency departments, and higher likelihood of complications (91–93).

Associations of Housing Instability With Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes.

The prevalence of diabetes among those with housing instability in the U.S., and whether it differs from that among those without housing instability, is not known. A key limitation for the field is that there is no single, accepted definition of housing instability or a commonly used assessment instrument. Further, because housing instability is more likely to occur among individuals with lower SES—which is independently associated with higher diabetes prevalence—it is unclear whether housing instability is causally related to developing diabetes. One systematic review did not find higher diabetes prevalence than in the general population among persons experiencing homelessness, estimating approximately 8% prevalence in adults who do and do not experience homelessness (94). A recent study using nationally representative data from individuals seen in community health centers found that approximately 37% of individuals with diabetes reported housing instability. This study also found that individuals with diabetes and housing instability were more likely to self-report having an emergency department visit or hospitalization for their diabetes (adjusted OR 5.17, 95% CI 2.08–12.87) (82). A cross-sectional study in a single health care system found that housing instability among individuals with diabetes was associated with higher outpatient utilization (incident rate ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.14–1.51) (95). Though not specific to diabetes, additional work has linked housing instability to poor health outcomes and reduced health care access (91,96–100). A longitudinal study in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system found that experiencing homelessness was associated with higher adjusted odds of having an HbA1c >8.0% and >9.0%. Vijayaraghavan et al. (84) identified unstable housing as a key barrier to diabetes care among low-income individuals. There was an observed linear decrease in diabetes self-efficacy as housing instability increased (β-coefficient −0.94, 95% CI −1.88 to −0.01, P < 0.01), which was partially mediated by food insecurity. Qualitative work has found that unstable housing makes it more difficult to engage in self-care, follow self-management routines, afford diabetes medications and supplies, and eat healthy foods (91,92). Choice of medication is important, and considerations should include medication cost and the ability to store medication and diabetes care supplies safely. Brooks et al. provide a narrative review of considerations for diabetes treatment among individuals experiencing homelessness (101).

Housing Instability Interventions and Diabetes Outcomes.

Given its expense, housing is one of the most difficult health-related social needs to intervene upon. Housing intervention studies reporting diabetes outcomes are few; however, there is some high-quality evidence for housing interventions. The Moving To Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Project (MTO), a randomized social experiment conducted through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in partnership with behavioral scientists and other federal agencies, was designed to determine what impact moving from a high-poverty to a low-poverty census tract would have on multiple outcomes (102,103). In 1994–1998, MTO randomized 4,498 women with children living in public housing within high-poverty census tracts in five cities to one of three study arms. The 1,788 women in the experimental arm received Section 8 vouchers usable only in low-poverty areas (census tracts with <10% of the population below the poverty line) along with counseling and assistance in finding a private rental unit. The 1,312 women in the Section 8 arm received traditional unrestricted vouchers and the usual briefing the local Section 8 program provided. The 1,398 women in the control arm received no vouchers but continued to receive MTO project-based assistance. Those who received vouchers could choose whether to use the vouchers or not. Findings from the follow-up survey in 2008 through 2010 found a 21.6% relative reduction in prevalence of an elevated HbA1c (>6.5%) in the group that moved to low-poverty census tracts compared with the control group, with an absolute difference of 4.31 percentage points (95% CI −7.82 to −0.80). The low-poverty group also had relative reductions of 13.0% in prevalence of BMI ≥35 and relative reduction of 19.1% in BMI ≥40 kg/m2, with absolute differences of 4.61 percentage points (95% CI −8.54 to −0.69) and 3.38 percentage points (95% CI −6.39 to −0.36), respectively (102). The usual vouchers and control arms did not differ. Other MTO outcomes among the group randomized to low-poverty census tracts included higher housing quality, education, employment, and earnings as well as multiple additional improvements to child and adult health (103). A 10–15 year follow-up study found substantial and sustained reductions in diabetes prevalence, rates of extreme obesity, and improvement in mental health outcomes among the adults who received vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods and reduction in extreme obesity among the adults who received Section 8 vouchers (104). While not specific to diabetes, a meta-analysis of randomized trials that provided low-barrier housing support for individuals experiencing homelessness found significant reductions in health care utilization (105).

Housing interventions may facilitate access to diabetes care. The Collaborative Initiative to End Chronic Homelessness provided adults who were chronically homeless with permanent housing and supportive primary health care and mental health services (106). Placed persons were more likely to receive evaluation and management services (relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04) than unplaced persons (107). Placed persons were more likely to receive HbA1c tests (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19) and lipid tests (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.17), while for those without baseline diabetes placement was associated with lower risk of new diabetes diagnoses (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76–0.99). Keene et al. (91) suggest the relationship of stable housing to diabetes management is due to its role as a foundation for prioritizing care and allowing for the routinization of diabetes management, critical to disease control. This suggests the benefits of supportive and stable housing may be extended to diabetes care and prevention. A naturalistic qualitative study of the impact of transitioning to rental-assisted housing among low-income, housing-insecure adults with T2DM reported that rental assistance afforded individuals more environmental and financial control over life circumstances, thereby enabling diabetes routines and allocation of financial resources to diabetes care (108).

Built Environment

The built environment, as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), includes the physical parts of where people live and work, such as infrastructure, buildings, streets, and open spaces (109). Here, built environment factors of walkability and greenspace are reviewed.

Associations of Built Environment with Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes.

A robust literature has demonstrated associations of the built environment with obesity-related outcomes (110–113). However, a smaller body of research has examined associations of the built environment with diabetes specifically. Smalls et al. (114) reported significant associations of both walking environment (β = −0.040) and neighborhood activities (β = −0.104) with exercise in a southeastern U.S. population with diabetes. A recent U.S. review and meta-analysis by Chandrabose et al. (113) examined longitudinal studies of the built environment and cardiometabolic health. Results showed strong evidence for impact of walkability on T2DM outcomes, with four of seven studies (57%) showing significant findings in the aggregated analyses using objective and perceived measures of walkability. Although the methods to determine mediation by physical activity in most studies were ineffective to make conclusions, one study tested the indirect effect of walkability on 10-year change in HbA1c and found a partial mediation effect for self-reported physical activity using structural equation modeling. For other measures of built environment, such as neighborhood recreational facilities or destinations/routes, there was insufficient data to examine the relationship with T2DM outcomes. A larger body of research on built environment and diabetes has been conducted in countries outside of the U.S (110–112). In these studies, neighborhood physical activity (PA) environments, specifically better walkability of neighborhoods and access to greenspace, have been consistently associated with lower risk of T2DM and better outcomes (115,116). Numerous studies have been conducted on walkability measured by macroscale aspects of the neighborhood, including higher population density, land use mix, and aesthetics, to microscale aspects, including sidewalks, street connectivity, and street safety. A review by Bilal et al. (115) on walkability and diabetes incidence and prevalence found that more walkable neighborhoods are associated with a lower incidence and prevalence of T2DM. Similarly, Twohig-Bennett and Jones (117) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the relationship to diabetes outcomes of “high” and “low” exposure to greenspace in neighborhoods (defined as open, undeveloped land with natural vegetation and/or spaces such as parks and tree-lined areas). The meta-analysis, representing 462,220 participants, showed an association of high exposure with reductions in the incidence of T2DM (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61–0.85) (117). After decades of research, many built environment factors related to PA and obesity risk have been identified for consideration in urban planning (118).

Neighborhood-Level Interventions on the Built Environment and Diabetes Outcomes.

Because it is often not feasible or ethical to randomize neighborhoods to receive certain structural interventions, natural experiment designs are used in which the researcher does not control or withhold intervention allocation to particular areas; rather, natural or predetermined variation in allocation occurs, often as a result of policy intervention (119). Several review articles of natural experiments summarize the benefits of policy and built environment changes on obesity-related outcomes (112) and diet and PA outcomes (120,121). The strongest diet-related studies were those that evaluated regulations to the food environment, and the strongest PA-related studies were those that improved infrastructure for active transport. Although this literature does not directly address diabetes outcomes, improvements in obesity and diet and PA behaviors are relevant to populations with diabetes and warrant rigorous evaluation (122).

Toxic Environmental Exposures

Toxic environmental exposures can be naturally occurring (e.g., arsenic in private wells, radon) or introduced into the environment through human activity (e.g., pollution, synthetic pesticides) (123). Marginalized communities in the U.S. are disproportionately exposed to environmental agents that have evidence of an association with diabetes, including air pollution, environmental toxicants, and ambient noise (124–129), and subgroups that generate the least pollution have highest exposures (130).

Factors contributing to inequities in toxic environmental exposures include residential segregation and inequity in goods and services, due in part to systemic racism in environmental regulation and opportunities (128,130–133). Explanatory factors are closer proximity of underserved neighborhoods to nearby pollution sources, poor enforcement of regulations, and inadequate response to community complaints (134–138). In rural and suburban communities, including Native American Indian communities, unregulated private wells are a source of water contaminants including arsenic and other metals/metalloids, pesticides, and hazardous chemicals, affecting millions of people (139–141). Both food packaging and fast-food consumption, which can be high in low-income neighborhoods, can expose people to chemicals known to be endocrine disrupters (142–145). Examples include chemicals released from plastic packaging during microwave heating (142), higher urinary phthalate levels associated with fast food (145), and higher urinary bisphenol A levels from canned foods (146). Certain personal care and cosmetic products, which are a source of phthalates and metals (e.g., skin-lightening products, which are high in mercury), are disproportionately marketed to marginalized population subgroups (147).

Associations of Environmental Risk Factors With Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes.

In 2011, the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences convened an international workshop to evaluate the experimental and epidemiologic evidence on the relationship of environmental chemicals with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome (148–150). Evidence was deemed strongest for arsenic, with relative risks of diabetes found to range from 1.11 to 10.05 in different studies (median 2.69) at high arsenic exposure levels. More recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses present the growing literature examining multiple groups of chemicals (148,151) or specific groups of chemicals (152–154). Overall, the evidence supports an increased risk of diabetes in populations exposed to environmental chemicals including arsenic, persistent organic pollutants, phthalates, and possibly bisphenol.

In 11 prospective studies of air pollution exposure and incident diabetes in adults, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) per 10 µg/m3 increment particulate matter of <2.5 µm aerodynamic diameter was 1.10 (1.04–1.17) (155). Other reviews have reached conclusions consistent with this increased diabetes risk finding (156–158). The epidemiologic evidence is also supported by animal experiments showing that air pollution exposure can increase susceptibility to insulin resistance and T2DM (159–161). These findings highlight that populations more exposed to air pollution are also disproportionately at risk for developing diabetes.

There is epidemiologic and experimental evidence that environmental exposures increase susceptibility to cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people with diabetes. The evidence is extensive for air pollution exposures (162,163). For example, in Medicare patients, a daily increase of 10 µg/m3 in particulate matter <10 µm of aerodynamic diameter was associated with 2.01% increase in CVD hospitalizations for those with diabetes compared with 0.94% increase among those without diabetes (162). Short-term increases in air pollution exposure are also related to higher risk of stroke mortality in patients with diabetes compared with those without (164). In an experimental model, mice with diabetes exposed to diesel exhaust particles showed increased cardiovascular susceptibility compared with mice without diabetes (165). In natural experiments in human populations, air pollution exposure also resulted in increased vascular reactivity (166) and inflammation in patients with diabetes compared with those without (167). In addition to air pollution, some evidence is also available for metals. In the Strong Heart Study of American Indian adults followed since 1989–1991, the risk of CVD associated with higher exposure to arsenic and cadmium was higher among participants with diabetes compared with those without diabetes (168,169). In a clinical trial in patients with a previous myocardial infarction (Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy [TACT]), the beneficial effects of repeated chelation with disodium edetate on cardiovascular outcomes were greater in patients with diabetes (170).

Environmental Exposures Interventions and Diabetes.

Few studies have evaluated the effect of population-based or clinical interventions related to environmental exposures and diabetes prevention or control. The increased risk of diabetes in populations exposed to environmental chemicals and the increased susceptibility for diabetes complications in individuals with diabetes exposed to air pollution potentially provides an opportunity for prevention and treatment that can be particularly relevant for the most vulnerable populations. For example, a comparison of preterm births among four studies in different countries, before and after the implementation of smoke-free legislation, has shown reductions in diabetes risk (pooled risk change −18.4%, 95% CI −18.8 to −2), although the long-term benefits have not yet been evaluated (171).

Because individuals generally have limited control over environmental agents, the most effective interventions will be at the population level, through policy and regulation, with a particular focus on protecting marginalized and underserved populations. There is evidence that declines in air pollution levels and metal exposures have contributed to improvements in CVD development (172,173); benefits for diabetes development are pending. Research is also needed to test intermediate strategies at the clinical level, such as exposure screening (e.g., asking about living near highways or using private wells for drinking water) and recommendations to test air or water, reduce known sources of exposure (e.g., minimize packaged foods, avoid heating food in plastic containers, and minimize use of certain cosmetic products), and make home interventions (e.g., install filters for air or water contaminants) (174–176).

Food Environment and Diabetes

The food environment can be defined as the physical presence of food that affects a person’s diet; a person’s proximity to food store locations; the distribution of food stores, food service, and any physical entity by which food may be obtained; or a connected system that allows access to food (177). It is the “collective physical, economic, policy and sociocultural surroundings, opportunities and conditions that influence people’s food and beverage choices and nutritional status” (178). It is also referred to as the community food environment (e.g., number, type, location, and accessibility of food outlets such as food stores, markets, or both) and the consumer-level environment (e.g., healthful, affordable foods in stores, markets, or both), which interact to affect food choices and diet quality (179,180). Key dimensions of the food environment include accessibility, availability, affordability, and quality (181–184). These factors, which define the quality of the food environment, are of particular importance in marginalized communities, which may have poor access to supermarkets and healthy foods but abundant access to fast-food outlets and energy-dense foods and are often disproportionately impacted by physical hazards (e.g., vacant houses, traffic, and crime) (78). At their root, differences in the food environment can be caused by government policies and incentives, and the legacy of such policies as redlining and segregation.

Associations of Food Environment With Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes

Food Access and Availability.

Cross-sectional studies have shown associations between food access, availability, geographic characteristics, and T2DM prevalence. Ahern et al. (185) examined 3,128 counties across the U.S. for food access (assessed as percent of households with no car living more than one mile from a grocery store) and food availability (assessed as number of fast-food restaurants, full-service restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, and per capita sales in dollars from local farms made directly to consumers). Higher access to food was associated with lower T2DM rates in metro and nonmetro counties, and higher availability of full-service restaurants and grocery stores and lower availability of fast-food and convenience stores were associated with lower diabetes rates (185). Haynes-Maslow and Leone (186) similarly found availability of full-service restaurants to be associated with lower prevalence of diabetes in adults and availability of fast-food restaurants generally to be associated with higher diabetes prevalence. However, the study reported variability in associations among numerous food environment characteristics based on county composition (low poverty/low minority, low poverty/medium minority, high poverty/low minority), highlighting complexities in understanding patterns among variables of county socioeconomic status, demographics, food availability, and diabetes prevalence (186).

Several observational, longitudinal studies report neighborhood resources in general, and access and availability of the food environment in particular, as associated with diabetes prevalence and incidence (187). A systematic review by den Braver et al. (188) found availability of fast-food outlets and convenience stores to be associated with higher T2DM risk/prevalence and perceived healthfulness of the food environment to be associated with lower diabetes risk/prevalence, but no association was found between density of grocery stores and T2DM risk/prevalence. Heterogeneity across the studies prevented the conduct of meta-analyses. Gabreab et al. (189) examined neighborhood, social, and physical environments and T2DM in 3,700 African Americans through the Jackson Heart Study and found higher density of unfavorable food stores was associated with a 34% higher T2DM incidence after adjusting for individual-level risk factors. In a longitudinal employee cohort, Herrick et al. (190) found that living in a zip code with higher supermarket density was associated with a reduction in T2DM risk, while zip codes with a higher percentage of poverty and zip codes with higher walkability scores were both associated with higher diabetes risk. Christine et al. (191) reported long-term exposure to residential environments that offer resources to support healthy diets and PA was associated with a lower incidence of T2DM, although results varied by measurement method.

Studies have also examined both food and PA environments in combination and diabetes risk. Meyer et al. (192) combined measures of neighborhood food and PA environments and weight-related outcomes (N = 14,379) of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, examining population density–specific (less than vs. greater than 1,750 people per square kilometer) clusters of neighborhood indicators: road connectivity, parks and PA facilities, and food stores/restaurants. In lower–population density areas, higher food and PA resource diversity relative to other clusters was significantly associated with higher diet quality (192). In higher–population density areas, a cluster with relatively more natural food/specialty stores, fewer convenience stores, and more PA resources was associated with higher diet quality. Neighborhood clusters were inconsistently associated with BMI or insulin resistance and not associated with fast-food consumption, or walking, biking, or running (192). Tabaei et al. (193) examined associations of residential socioeconomic, food, and built environments with glycemic control in adults with diabetes ascertained from the New York City A1C Registry from 2007 to 2013. Individuals who lived continuously in the most advantaged residential areas, including greater ratio of healthy food outlets to unhealthy food outlets and residential walkability, achieved increased glycemic control and took less time to achieve glycemic control compared with the individuals who lived continuously in the least advantaged residential areas (193).

Food Affordability.

Kern et al. (194) note that it is reasonable to expect that large differences in price between healthy and unhealthy foods would lead to differences in purchasing patterns and resulting diets and that those differences would be more prominent for individuals of lower SES. In a longitudinal study, they examined food affordability and neighborhood price of healthier food relative to unhealthy food and its association with T2DM and insulin resistance. Higher prices of healthy foods relative to unhealthy foods were found to be associated with lower odds of having a high-quality diet; however, there was no association with diabetes incidence or prevalence (194). More studies are needed in this area.

Food Insecurity.

Food insecurity is defined as not having adequate quantity and quality of food at all times for all household members to have an active, healthy life (195,196). Approximately 20% of diabetes patients report household food insecurity (197), and food insecurity is a risk factor for poor diabetes management (196). Researchers have investigated several pathways through which food insecurity may worsen T2DM outcomes (198–200). First, in the nutritional pathway, food insecurity is associated with lower diet quality (201), which is in turn associated with higher HbA1c. Food insecurity incentivizes more affordable, energy-dense foods that can directly raise serum glucose (e.g., refined carbohydrates, processed snacks and sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, etc.) and may lead to greater insulin resistance (202,203). Conversely, low or inconsistent food availability can increase risk of hypoglycemia. Second, via a compensatory pathway, behavioral strategies necessary to cope with the immediate problem of food insecurity can inadvertently undermine T2DM management. For example, financial resources that might otherwise have been used for medications or diabetes care supplies are diverted to meet dietary needs (197,204–206). Third, through the psychological pathway, the state of food insecurity, in which meeting basic needs is outside an individual’s control, undermines self-efficacy and increases depressive symptoms and diabetes distress (207–210). Several studies have reported a relationship between food insecurity and adverse diabetes outcomes (211,212), and a review by Barnard et al. (213) has suggested that food insecurity among patients with and at high risk for T2DM may be particularly toxic because, in addition to issues of accessing sufficient calories overall, the dietary quality of the foods eaten is even more important than for the general population. Several cross-sectional studies report a relationship between food insecurity and T2DM diabetes outcomes (214–216), including poor metabolic control (217,218), experience of severe hypoglycemia in low-income and low-education samples (218), lower diabetes self-management behavioral adherence and worse glycemic control (219), and increased outpatient visits but not increased emergency department/inpatient visits (95,212).

Food Environment Interventions and Diabetes

Three studies reported food bank and pantry interventions with food insecure clients with T2DM (196,220,221). Seligman et al. (196) conducted a pilot program in Texas, California, and Ohio with a pre/post design, encompassing provision of diabetes-appropriate food, blood glucose monitoring, self-management support, and primary care referrals. The study resulted in improvements in HbA1c, fruit and vegetable consumption, self-efficacy, and medication adherence. In a randomized controlled trial of the intervention, Seligman et al. (220) found improvements in nutritional consumption, food security, and distress but no clinical changes. Palar et al. (221) found reduction in BMI but not HbA1c and better nutritional and psychosocial outcomes.

Studies have examined effect of supermarket gain or loss on T2DM outcomes. A study conducted within the setting of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Diabetes Registry linked clinical measures to metrics from a geographic information system based on participants’ residential addresses (115,222,223). Results over 4 years of tracking supermarket change in low-income neighborhoods showed that relative to no change in supermarket presence, supermarket loss was associated with worse HbA1c trajectories, especially among those with highest HbA1c. Supermarket gain in neighborhoods was associated with marginally better HbA1c outcomes, but only for those with near-normal HbA1c baseline values (223). In a natural experiment design, the Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Study on Eating, Shopping, and Health (PHRESH) tested the effects of adding a supermarket, along with other neighborhood investments, on cardiometabolic risk factors among a randomly selected cohort of residents from two low-income, urban, and predominately African American matched neighborhoods (222,224). Results for the intervention neighborhood (receiving the supermarket) showed improved perceived access to healthy food (225), and the prevalence of diabetes increased less in the neighborhood with the supermarket than in the comparison neighborhood. Since the initiation of the supermarket, many other investments including greenspace, housing, and commercial spaces have been implemented in the intervention neighborhood (226). Results of these neighborhood investments on measured BMI, blood pressure, HbA1c, and HDL cholesterol will be forthcoming. In sum, food environment factors of food unavailability, inaccessibility, and insecurity each demonstrate associations with worse diabetes risk and outcomes, and interventions including diabetes-targeted food and self-management care at food banks and pantries and increasing grocery store presence in low-income neighborhoods are few, but collectively they demonstrate the potential to impact diabetes risk, clinical outcomes, and psychosocial outcomes.

Health Care and Diabetes

Health care as a SDOH includes access, affordability, and quality of care factors. In the U.S., these factors are highly correlated with race/ethnicity, SES, and place/geographic region (19).

Associations of Health Care With Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes

Access.

In population-based studies, having health insurance is the strongest predictor of whether adults with diabetes have access to diabetes screenings and care (227). Uninsured adults in the U.S. population have a higher likelihood of having undiagnosed diabetes than adults with insurance (228). Compared with insured adults with diabetes, the uninsured have 60% fewer office visits with a physician, are prescribed 52% fewer medications, and have 168% more emergency department visits (229). Liese et al. (230) found that, among adolescents and young adults with T1DM or T2DM, compared with having private insurance, having state or federal health insurance was associated with higher HbA1c values by 0.68%, and having no insurance was associated with higher HbA1c by 1.34%. Having insurance has also been found to attenuate associations of financial barriers with higher HbA1c (231).

Geographic access to adult and pediatric endocrinologists varies substantially by state and county in the U.S (232), with disparities in access in many of the geographic regions with highest diabetes prevalence and socioeconomic disadvantage (232,233). Similarly, factors that increase odds of having a diabetes self-management education program in a geographic area include a higher percentage of the population with at least a high school education, a higher percentage of insured individuals, and a lower rate of unemployment (234). DeVoe et al. (235) found that among adults with diabetes, having both insurance and a usual source of care, rather than one or the other, conferred the greatest odds of receiving at least minimum diabetes health care. Being uninsured and without a usual source of care was associated with three to five times lower odds of adults receiving an HbA1c screen, blood pressure check, or access to urgent care when needed (235). Among adolescents and young adults with diabetes who had state or federal health insurance, not having any usual source of provider (primary care or diabetes specialist) was associated with higher HbA1c than having a usual source of provider, and HbA1c was similar whether in primary care or specialist care (230).

Affordability.

On average, health care costs of people with diabetes are 2.3 times those of people without diabetes (229). Approximately 14% to 20% of adults with diabetes report reducing or delaying medications due to cost (236–238). Among adults with diabetes who are prescribed insulin, rates may be >25% (236,239). Cost-related or cost-reducing nonadherence (CRN) is associated with income, insured status, and type of insurance. Adults with diabetes with an annual household income of <$50,000 are more likely to engage in CRN than their counterparts with income ≥$50,000, and uninsured adults with diabetes are more likely to engage in CRN than those with insurance (236). Within a diabetes clinic population of adults with T1DM or T2DM prescribed insulin, odds of CRN were three times higher for those with Medicaid or no insurance compared with those with Medicare (239). Piette et al. (240) found differences based on health system model. Compared with VA patients with diabetes, risk of CRN was found to be almost three times higher for privately insured patients and four to eight times higher for patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or no health insurance (240). Higher financial stress, financial insecurity, and financial barriers are associated with likelihood of CRN (231,238). People with CRN experience poorer diabetes management, higher HbA1c, and decreased functional status (231,240). Deaths have been reported from insulin CRN among youth and adults with T1DM (241).

Quality.

Having insurance is the strongest single predictor of whether adults with diabetes are likely to meet individual quality measures of diabetes care (242). Sociodemographic disparities in care quality are well documented in national reports and recommendations (2) and appear to remain consistent over time (243). In a U.S. population-based study of achievement of a composite diabetes treatment goal from 2005 to 2016, data from 2013 to 2016 showed that non-Hispanic Blacks had lower odds of achieving a composite diabetes quality measure than non-Hispanic Whites (adjusted OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39–0.83), and women had lower odds than men (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.80), with no improvement in diabetes treatment gaps from prior time periods (2005–2008 and 2009–2012), especially for minorities, women, and younger adults (227). Within insured settings, disparities have been reported among Blacks as compared with Whites—in measures including dilated eye exam taken; LDL test taken; LDL, blood pressure, or HbA1c control; and statin therapy (244–246). A study of 21 VA facilities found Blacks with diabetes were more likely than Whites with diabetes to receive care at lower-performing facilities overall, which explained some racial differences in diabetes quality measures (246).

Health Care Interventions and Diabetes

Community Health Workers.

Several systematic reviews have concluded that community health worker (CHW) interventions using trained lay workforces are effective for multiple outcomes in underserved African American and Hispanic adults with T2DM and comorbid conditions (247–250). CHWs have been integrated into care delivery (251,252) with reimbursement in some states (253). Roles of CHWs include patient navigation, appointment scheduling, visit attendance, patient education, home-based monitoring, assessment of social needs and connection with social services, social support, and advocacy (252,254). Reported outcomes include better diabetes knowledge and self-care behaviors, increased quality of life, reduced emergency visits and hospitalizations, reduced costs, and modest improvements in glycemic control (247–250,255), using home-based or integrated health team delivery models (252,256). A majority of the CHW interventions designed for adult populations with diabetes have been diabetes-focused in content and goals and have utilized structured curricula (254); however, one series of studies reported use of a standardized, all-condition CHW intervention and found modest gain in diabetes outcomes along with additional health benefits (257,258).

Organizational Interventions.

Systematic reviews report improvements in quality of diabetes care among racial/ethnic minorities resulting from quality improvement employing health information technology (i.e., patient registries in the electronic health record, computerized decision support for providers, reminders, centralized outreach for diabetes patients overdue for specific services) (245,259,260). There is also evidence of effectiveness of self-management interventions delivered directly to underserved patients with diabetes when interventions are designed to overcome barriers. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-sponsored National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Medicaid demonstration found CDC-recognized DPP lifestyle change programs were effective in achieving performance measures among Medicaid recipients in Maryland and Oregon, and additional strategies (i.e., transportation assistance and child care) facilitated the high retention reported over the 12 months of DPP visits (261). In a series of studies, a problem-based self-management training addressing multiple life barriers to care in low-income and minority populations was adapted for low literacy and prevalent diabetes-related functional limitations (e.g., low vision, physical disability, and mild cognitive impairment) that impede self-management education (73,262). The approach has proven effective in improving clinical outcomes (HbA1c, blood pressure), self-care behaviors, and self-management knowledge and problem-solving skills in low-income, racial/ethnic minority, and rural populations (76,263,264).

Policy.

Studies have examined the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on insurance coverage and health care access for patients with diabetes (265). Analyses of NHIS data from 2009 and 2016 found an increase nationwide of 770,000 more adults with diabetes aged 18 to 64 years with health insurance coverage in 2016, with a significant increase in coverage seen among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, people with family income <$35,000, and people across educational attainment strata (less than high school and more than high school) (266). Among people with diabetes in the lowest income strata, the proportion of income spent on health costs decreased significantly from 6.3% to 4.8% (266). Other studies found increased access to care, diabetes management, and health status among people with diabetes in Medicaid expansion states as compared with their counterparts in non–Medicaid expansion states (267); increased rates of diabetes detection and diagnosis among Medicaid patients with undiagnosed diabetes in states with Medicaid expansion (268); and reduction in cost-related medication nonadherence rates and uninsured rates among people with diabetes following ACA (269).

Social Context and Diabetes

Several multidimensional factors shape the social environment as a determinant of health (270), including social capital, social cohesion, and social support (28,29). Social capital is defined as the features of social structures that serve as resources for collective action (e.g., interpersonal trust, reciprocity norms, and mutual aid) (271–273). Bonding social capital refers to trusting and co-operative relations between members of a network who see themselves as being similar in terms of their shared social identity; by contrast, bridging social capital refers to aspects of respect and mutuality between people who do not share social identities (e.g., differing by race/ethnicity, social class, age) (274–276). Racism, discrimination, and inclusion versus exclusion are macro-level social capital factors that impact health (28).

Social cohesion refers to the extent of connectedness and solidarity among groups in a community (271,277) and has two dimensions: reduction of inequalities and patterns of social exclusion of population subgroups from full participation in society (278) and strengthening of social relationships and interactions (279–281). Social cohesion actions facilitate the goal of keeping the society united, not only through social relations, community ties, and intergroup harmony but also through reducing bias and discrimination toward economically disadvantaged groups within a society, such as women and ethnic minorities (28).

Social support describes experiences in individuals’ formal and informal personal relationships as well as their perceptions of those relationships. Categories include emotional support, tangible support, informational support, and companionship (282–285). Social support is theorized to operate by either buffering the effects of poor health or by directly impacting health (285,286).

Associations of Social Context With Diabetes Incidence, Prevalence, and Outcomes

A systematic review by Flôr et al. (287) concluded that social capital was positively associated with diabetes control among different populations, independent of the quality or quantity of social capital. However, the few studies available and variations among populations and measures limit the ability to draw firm conclusions related to dimensions of social capital and whether the association is the same at the individual or neighborhood level (272,288–290). Gebreab et al. (189), using data from the Jackson Heart Study, examined social cohesion, measured as trust in neighbors, shared values with neighbors, willingness to help neighbors, and extent to which neighbors get along. The study revealed higher neighborhood social cohesion was associated with a 22% lower incidence of T2DM (189). Studies demonstrating the relationship between social support and diabetes have associated increased social support with better glycemic control and improved quality of life (291–295), while lack of social support has been associated with increased mortality and diabetes-related complications (291).

A number of studies suggest social cohesion, social capital, and social support may influence—or be influenced by—racism and discrimination (296). Racism interacts with other social entities, creating a set of dynamic, interdependent components that reinforce each other, sustaining racial inequities and promoting both institutional- and individual-level discrimination across various sectors of society impacting diabetes incidence (296,297). For example, Whitaker et al. (298) documented associations of major and everyday discrimination experiences with incident diabetes among a diverse sample of 5,310 middle-aged to older adults from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. The Black Women’s Health Study found that, when compared with women in the lowest quartile of exposure, those in the highest quartile of exposure to everyday racism had a 31% increased risk of diabetes (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20–1.42), and women with the highest exposure to lifetime racism had a 16% increased risk (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.27); both associations were mediated by BMI (298,299). Further work is needed to understand the multiple ways that the social environment influences inequities in diabetes outcomes.

Social Context Interventions and Diabetes Outcomes

To our knowledge, there is no empirical research on social capital or social cohesion interventions and impact on diabetes outcomes, but a body of literature has examined effects of social support. The systematic review by Strom and Egede (284) of 18 observational studies of adults with T2DM found that higher levels of social support were associated with outcomes including better glycemic control, knowledge, treatment adherence, quality of life, diagnosis awareness and acceptance, and stress reduction (284). Lack of social support has been linked with increased mortality and diabetes-related complications in T2DM (291,295). Strom and Egede’s review of 16 social support intervention studies demonstrated improved diabetes-related outcomes (clinical, psychosocial, and/or self-management behavior change) in adults with T2DM, and improvements in clinical outcomes (HbA1c, blood pressure, lipids) appeared to be unrelated to the source or delivery (i.e., peer support, couples/spouse, or nurse manager).

With regard to preferences—in a study conducted before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic—Sarkar et al. (300) found that, compared with White adults with diabetes, Hispanics with diabetes preferred telephone-based and group support (including promotoras), while African Americans demonstrated more variability in their preferences (i.e., telephone, group, internet). Reliance on support from family and community tended to be higher in minority populations, while Whites relied more on media and health care professionals (300).

Linkages Across Health Care and Community Sectors to Address SDOH

International and U.S. national committees have convened to provide guidance on SDOH intervention approaches. These expert committee recommendations are not specific to any disease; rather, they are applicable to all conditions and populations of health inequity. Table 3 displays recommendations from the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (27), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (formerly, Institute of Medicine) Committee on the Recommended Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures for Electronic Health Records (80), the NASEM Committee on Educating Health Professionals to Address the Social Determinants of Health (301), and the NASEM Committee on Integrating Social Needs Care into the Delivery of Health Care to Improve the Nation's Health (5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

SDOH intervention recommendations from international and national (U.S.) committees

The WHO recommendations are unique in their emphasis on root-cause, multisector interventions designed to remove the SDOH as a barrier to health equity. The NASEM recommendations are based in the health care sector and, collectively, focus on integration of SDOH into the health care mission, operations, and financial model. Accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, and shared savings programs could be intentionally designed to support and incentivize health care systems to address patients’ health-related social needs as a strategy to improve health outcomes (5). The Accountable Health Communities is one current CMS demonstration project examining impact on health care costs of three models for health care response to SDOH through linkages with community services: awareness (screening for social needs within the health care setting and patient referral to services using an inventory of available local community services), assistance (screening, referral, plus navigation to enable access to and use of community services), and alignment (screening, referral, community service navigation, plus partner alignment using a “backbone” organization for capacity building, data sharing among community and health care partners, and scaling of services) (302). Many health care systems are utilizing electronic medical records and health information exchanges to capture SDOH data and commercially available SDOH algorithms to identify patients at social risk and trigger service referrals (303). NASEM provided assessment questions to capture SDOH domains and frequencies for assessment (304) with evidence of feasibility (305). In addition, Table 4 displays publicly available resources and tools to aid providers in addressing individual patients’ social needs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4

Examples of resources on SDOH available for health care organizations and health care professionals

Discussion

There is SDOH evidence supporting associations of SES, neighborhood and physical environment, food environment, health care, and social context with diabetes-related outcomes. Inequities in living and working conditions and the environments in which people reside have a direct impact on biological and behavioral outcomes associated with diabetes prevention and control (12,48). Life-course exposure based on the length of time one spends living in resource-deprived environments—defined by poverty, lack of quality education, or lack of health care—significantly impacts disparities in diabetes risk, diagnosis, and outcomes (12,48,306). Although the review reports SDOH intervention studies for aspects of housing, built and food environment, and health care, there appears to be relatively limited U.S.-based research examining impact on diabetes of interventions designed to target education, income, occupation, toxic environmental exposures, social cohesion, and social capital.

In the U.S., integrating social context into health care delivery has become a priority strategy (5–8). A clinical context alone, however, is too narrow to accommodate systemic SDOH influences. Structural and legal interventions are needed to address root causes driving SDOH (27,307). Similarly, additional emphasis is needed on a next generation of research that prioritizes interventions impacting the root causes of diabetes inequities, rather than compensatory interventions assisting the individual to adapt to inequities (18,308). For example, in the U.S., proficient literacy and resulting health literacy are disproportionately low in marginalized populations and communities (42), with historical sociopolitical root causes. U.S. antiliteracy laws for Blacks, which prohibited Blacks from being taught to read or write, persisted until the 1930s in some states (309,310), and laws prohibiting African Americans from attending public and private schools Whites attended continued until 1954 and 1976, respectively (311). Although adapting health materials for low-literacy suitability is an effective intervention to compensate for centuries of legal racial discrimination in educational access and quality, a next-generation intervention might target the education sector and implement delivery of high-quality early education to all within both the public and private school systems and with equitable educational funding for sociodemographic populations. Similarly, while partnerships to bring bags of healthy groceries to low-income families living in food deserts are important to compensate for food deserts, a next-generation approach might target historical redlining and zoning policies that are the root cause of absence of supermarkets and fresh food markets in minority and lower-income neighborhoods (312–314).

The review has limitations. First, the undertaking was designed to summarize literature on the range of SDOH identified as having impact on diabetes outcomes. As such, this article describes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as more recent published studies on the named SDOH; it was not designed as a primary systematic review of all published research on the topic. Second are limitations of the research itself, including wide variability in measures and definitions used in studies within an SDOH area, making it more difficult to describe outcomes for an SDOH area in a consistent or uniform manner or to report quantitative outcomes derived from meta-analyses. Third, this review was U.S.-focused; conclusions from SDOH research in other countries, which in some instances may utilize more standardly defined SDOH variables (e.g., occupation) are not part of this initial review. Finally, the many complexities of SDOH and their potentially different pathways and impacts on populations are beyond the scope of this initial review and require attention to specificity in designs of future SDOH research in diabetes.

Recommendations for SDOH research in diabetes resulting from this SDOH review are described in Table 5 and include establishing consensus SDOH definitions and metrics, designing studies to examine specificities based on populations, prioritizing next-generation interventions, embedding SDOH context within dissemination and implementation science in diabetes, and training researchers in methodological techniques for future SDOH intervention studies. By addressing these critical elements, there is potential for progress to be realized in achieving greater health equity in diabetes and across health outcomes that are socially determined.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5

SDOH and diabetes research recommendations

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors express appreciation to Malaika I. Hill and Mindy Saraco of the American Diabetes Association; Elizabeth A. Vrany, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; and Shelly Johnson, Washington University in St. Louis, for providing technical assistance for this review.

Funding. F.H.-B. is supported in part by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR), which is funded in part by grant UL1TR003098 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. F.H.-B. is also supported in part by NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grant T32HL07180. D.H.-J. is supported in part by NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) grant P30DK092950. M.H.C. is supported in part by NIH and NIDDK grant P30DK092949. T.L.G.-W. is supported in part by NHLBI grant R01HL131531. A.N.-A. is supported in part by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grants P42ES010349 and P30ES009089. S.A.B. is supported in part by NIDDK grant K23DK109200.

The findings and conclusion in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Johns Hopkins ICTR, NCATS, NIH, NIDDK, or any other institution mentioned in the article.

Duality of Interest. M.H.C. reports being co-coordinator of the “Bridging the Gap: Reducing Disparities in Diabetes Care National Program Office,” supported by the Merck Foundation, a consultant to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Group, and a member of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Health Equity Advisory Board. S.A.B. received personal fees for service on an advisory board about prioritizing food insecurity research topics for the Aspen Institute. T.L.G.-W. received personal fees for service on an advisory board about prioritizing food insecurity research topics for the Aspen Institute. No other potential conflicts of interests relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. F.H.-B. researched data and wrote the manuscript. N.E.A. contributed to writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript. S.A.B. researched data and contributed to writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript. M.H.C. contributed to writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript. T.L.G.-W. researched data and contributed to writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript. A.N.-A. researched data and contributed to writing the manuscript. P.L.T. researched data and contributed to writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript. D.H.-J. researched data and contributed to writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying articles, pp. 1, 8, 11, and 188.

  • Received September 25, 2020.
  • Accepted September 25, 2020.
  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Golden SH,
    2. Brown A,
    3. Cauley JA, et al
    . Health disparities in endocrine disorders: biological, clinical, and nonclinical factors—an Endocrine Society scientific statement. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:E1579–E1639
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Minority Health
    . The CMS Equity Plan for Improving Quality in Medicare, September 2015. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/OMH/OMH_Dwnld-CMS_EquityPlanforMedicare_090615.pdf
  3. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and Office of Minority Health
    . HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Implementation Progress Report 2011-2014. Washington, DC, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2015
  4. ↵
    1. Chin MH
    . Creating the business case for achieving health equity. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:792–796
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
    . Integrating Social Care Into the Delivery of Health Care: Moving Upstream to Improve the Nation's Health. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2019
    1. Byhoff E,
    2. Kangovi S,
    3. Berkowitz SA, et al.; Society of General Internal Medicine
    . A Society of General Internal Medicine position statement on the internists’ role in social determinants of health. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:2721–2727
    OpenUrl
    1. Council on Community Pediatrics;
    2. Duffee JH,
    3. Kuo A,
    4. Gitterman BA
    . Poverty and child health in the United States. Pediatrics 2016;137:e20160339
  6. ↵
    1. Daniel H,
    2. Bornstein SS,
    3. Kane GC; Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians
    . Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:577–578
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Peek ME,
    2. Vela MB,
    3. Chin MH
    . Practical lessons for teaching about race and racism: successfully leading free, frank, and fearless discussions. Acad Med. 1 September 2020 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003710
    1. Vela M,
    2. Blackman D,
    3. Burnet D, et al
    . Racialized violence and health care’s call to action, 6 June 2020. KevinMD.com. Accessed 7 June 2020. Available from https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2020/06/racialized-violence-and-health-cares-call-to-action.html
  8. ↵
    1. Chin MH,
    2. King PT,
    3. Jones RG, et al
    . Lessons for achieving health equity comparing Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States. Health Policy 2018;122:837–853
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Haire-Joshu D,
    2. Hill-Briggs F
    . The next generation of diabetes translation: a path to health equity. Annu Rev Public Health 2019;40:391–410
    OpenUrl
    1. Golden SH,
    2. Maruthur N,
    3. Mathioudakis N, et al
    . The case for diabetes population health improvement: evidence-based programming for population outcomes in diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 2017;17:51
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Hill-Briggs F
    . 2018 Health Care & Education Presidential Address: the American Diabetes Association in the era of health care transformation. Diabetes Care 2019;42:352–358
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Hill JO,
    2. Galloway JM,
    3. Goley A, et al
    . Scientific statement: socioecological determinants of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2430–2439
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    . Section IV: Advisory Committee findings and recommendations. In The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020. Phase I report,2008. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from http://www.healthypeople.gov/sites/default/files/PhaseI_0.pdf
  13. ↵
    1. Dankwa-Mullan I,
    2. Rhee KB,
    3. Williams K, et al
    . The science of eliminating health disparities: summary and analysis of the NIH summit recommendations. Am J Public Health 2010;100(Suppl. 1):S12–S18
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Thornton PL,
    2. Kumanyika SK,
    3. Gregg EW, et al
    . New research directions on disparities in obesity and type 2 diabetes. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2020;1461:5–24
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Smedley BD,
    2. Stith AY,
    3. Nelson AR
    1. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding Eliminating Racial Ethnic Disparities in Health Care
    . Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, Eds. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2003
  16. ↵
    1. Braveman P,
    2. Arkin E,
    3. Orleans T,
    4. Proctor D,
    5. Plough A
    . What Is Health Equity? And What Difference Does a Definition Make? Princeton, NJ, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2017
  17. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    . Healthy People 2020: An Opportunity to Address the Societal Determinants of Health in the United States. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020, 26 July 2010. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from http://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/hp2020/advisory/SocietalDeterminantsHealth.htm
  18. ↵
    1. Marmot M,
    2. Allen JJ
    . Social determinants of health equity. Am J Public Health 2014;104(Suppl. 4):S517–S519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
    . Foundation health measures: disparities. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health-measures/Disparities
  19. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Health equity. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.who.int/topics/health_equity/en/
  20. ↵
    1. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
    . Measures & data sources, 2019. Accessed 2 Februrary 2020. Available from https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/measures-data-sources
  21. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . About social determinants of health, 2020. Accessed 7 February 2020. Available from https://www.who.int/social_determinants/sdh_definition/en/
  22. ↵
    1. Commission on the Social Determinants of Health
    . Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2008. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/csdh_finalreport_2008.pdf
  23. ↵
    1. Solar O,
    2. Irwin A
    . A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2 (Policy and Practice). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2010. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.who.int/sdhconference/resources/ConceptualframeworkforactiononSDH_eng.pdf
  24. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
    . Healthy people 2020: social determinants of health. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health
  25. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . About social determinants of health (SDOH). Accessed 14 August 2020. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/about.html.
  26. ↵
    1. Remington PL,
    2. Catlin BB,
    3. Gennuso KP
    . The County Health Rankings: rationale and methods. Popul Health Metr 2015;13:11
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
    . County Health Rankings Model, 2014. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/resources/county-health-rankings-model
  28. ↵
    1. Artiga S,
    2. Hinton E
    . Beyond health care: the role of social determinants in promoting health and health equity. Issue Brief, May 2018. Kaiser Family Foundation. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from http://files.kff.org/attachment/issue-brief-beyond-health-care
  29. ↵
    1. Saegert SC,
    2. Adler NA,
    3. Bullock HE,
    4. Cauce AM,
    5. Liu WM,
    6. Wyche KF
    . Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2007
    1. Bunker P,
    2. Gomby DS,
    3. Kehrer BH
    1. Dutton DB,
    2. Levine S
    . Socioeconomic status and health: overview, methodological critique, and reformulation. In Pathways to Health: The Role of Social Factors. Bunker P, Gomby DS, Kehrer BH, Eds. Menlo Park, CA, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1989, pp. 29–69
  30. ↵
    1. Adler NE,
    2. Boyce T,
    3. Chesney MA, et al
    . Socioeconomic status and health. The challenge of the gradient. Am Psychol 1994;49:15–24
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Adler NE,
    2. Newman K
    . Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:60–76
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Braveman PA,
    2. Cubbin C,
    3. Egerter S, et al
    . Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA 2005;294:2879–2888
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Shavers VL
    . Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. J Natl Med Assoc 2007;99:1013–1023
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Dotson VM,
    2. Kitner-Triolo MH,
    3. Evans MK,
    4. Zonderman AB
    . Effects of race and socioeconomic status on the relative influence of education and literacy on cognitive functioning. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2009;15:580–589
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Sisco S,
    2. Gross AL,
    3. Shih RA, et al
    . The role of early-life educational quality and literacy in explaining racial disparities in cognition in late life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2015;70:557–567
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Rudd RE
    . Health literacy skills of U.S. adults. Am J Health Behav 2007;31(Suppl. 1):S8–S18
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Kutner M,
    2. Greenberg E,
    3. Jin Y,
    4. Boyle B,
    5. Hsu Y,
    6. Dunleavy E
    (Eds.). Literacy in Everyday Life: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). Washington, DC, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007
  37. ↵
    1. Kutner M,
    2. Greenburg E,
    3. Jin Y,
    4. Paulsen C
    . The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006
  38. ↵
    1. Swift EK
    1. Gornick ME
    . 2. Measuring the effects of socioeconomic status on health care. In Guidance for the National Healthcare Disparities Report. Swift EK, Ed. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2002
  39. ↵
    1. Agardh E,
    2. Allebeck P,
    3. Hallqvist J,
    4. Moradi T,
    5. Sidorchuk A
    . Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:804–818
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Brown AF,
    2. Ettner SL,
    3. Piette J, et al
    . Socioeconomic position and health among persons with diabetes mellitus: a conceptual framework and review of the literature. Epidemiol Rev 2004;26:63–77
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Braveman PA,
    2. Cubbin C,
    3. Egerter S,
    4. Williams DR,
    5. Pamuk E
    . Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: what the patterns tell us. Am J Public Health 2010;100(Suppl. 1):S186–S196
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Gaskin DJ,
    2. Thorpe RJ Jr,
    3. McGinty EE, et al
    . Disparities in diabetes: the nexus of race, poverty, and place. Am J Public Health 2014;104:2147–2155
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Beckles GL,
    2. Chou CF
    . Disparities in the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes – United States, 1999-2002 and 2011-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:1265–1269
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Drewnowski A,
    2. Rehm CD,
    3. Moudon AV,
    4. Arterburn D
    . The geography of diabetes by census tract in a large sample of insured adults in King County, Washington, 2005-2006. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:E125
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Kolak M,
    2. Abraham G,
    3. Talen MR
    . Mapping census tract clusters of type 2 diabetes in a primary care population. Prev Chronic Dis 2019;16:E59
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Schmittdiel JA,
    2. Dyer WT,
    3. Marshall CJ,
    4. Bivins R
    . Using neighborhood-level census data to predict diabetes progression in patients with laboratory-defined prediabetes. Perm J 2018;22:18–096
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Saydah S,
    2. Lochner K
    . Socioeconomic status and risk of diabetes-related mortality in the U.S. Public Health Rep 2010;125:377–388
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Scott A,
    2. Chambers D,
    3. Goyder E,
    4. O’Cathain A
    . Socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, morbidity and diabetes management for adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. PLoS One 2017;12:e0177210
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Bijlsma-Rutte A,
    2. Rutters F,
    3. Elders PJM,
    4. Bot SDM,
    5. Nijpels G
    . Socio-economic status and HbA1c in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2018;34:e3008
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Lindner LME,
    2. Rathmann W,
    3. Rosenbauer J
    . Inequalities in glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis according to socio-economic status and area-level deprivation in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabet Med 2018;35:12–32
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Borschuk AP,
    2. Everhart RS
    . Health disparities among youth with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of the current literature. Fam Syst Health 2015;33:297–313
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Walker RJ,
    2. Garacci E,
    3. Palatnik A,
    4. Ozieh MN,
    5. Egede LE
    . The longitudinal influence of social determinants of health on glycemic control in elderly adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020;43:759–766
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2017. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://dev.diabetes.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/cdc-statistics-report-2017.pdf
  54. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention
    . Diabetes Report Card 2017. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2018. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/library/diabetesreportcard2017-508.pdf
  55. ↵
    1. Borrell LN,
    2. Dallo FJ,
    3. White K
    . Education and diabetes in a racially and ethnically diverse population. Am J Public Health 2006;96:1637–1642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Secrest AM,
    2. Costacou T,
    3. Gutelius B,
    4. Miller RG,
    5. Songer TJ,
    6. Orchard TJ
    . Association of socioeconomic status with mortality in type 1 diabetes: the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study. Ann Epidemiol 2011;21:367–373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Marciano L,
    2. Camerini AL,
    3. Schulz PJ
    . The role of health literacy in diabetes knowledge, self-care, and glycemic control: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:1007–1017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Ferrie JE,
    2. Virtanen M,
    3. Jokela M, et al.; IPD-Work Consortium
    . Job insecurity and risk of diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data. CMAJ 2016;188:E447–E455
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Varanka-Ruuska T,
    2. Rautio N,
    3. Lehtiniemi H, et al
    . The association of unemployment with glucose metabolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Public Health 2018;63:435–446
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Gan Y,
    2. Yang C,
    3. Tong X, et al
    . Shift work and diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Occup Environ Med 2015;72:72–78
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Kivimaki M,
    2. Virtanen M,
    3. Kawachi I, et al
    . Long working hours, socioeconomic status, and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from 222 120 individuals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:27–34
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Gallup-Sharecare
    . The Face of Diabetes in the United States, State of American Well-being, 2017. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://wellbeingindex.sharecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/The-Face-of-Diabetes-in-the-United-States-2017.pdf
  63. ↵
    1. Witters D,
    2. Liu D
    . Diabetes rate greatest among transportation workers. Gallup, Inc., 2017. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://news.gallup.com/poll/214097/diabetes-rate-greatest-among-transportation-workers.aspx
  64. ↵
    1. Hill-Briggs F,
    2. Schumann KP,
    3. Dike O
    . Five-step methodology for evaluation and adaptation of print patient health information to meet the < 5th grade readability criterion. Med Care 2012;50:294–301
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. ↵
    1. Cavanaugh KL
    . Health literacy in diabetes care: explanation, evidence and equipment. Diabetes Manag (Lond) 2011;1:191–199
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Hill-Briggs F,
    2. Renosky R,
    3. Lazo M, et al
    . Development and pilot evaluation of literacy-adapted diabetes and CVD education in urban, diabetic African Americans. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:1491–1494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. White RO,
    2. Eden S,
    3. Wallston KA, et al
    . Health communication, self-care, and treatment satisfaction among low-income diabetes patients in a public health setting. Patient Educ Couns 2015;98:144–149
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Kim SH,
    2. Lee A
    . Health-literacy-sensitive diabetes self-management interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2016;13:324–333
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Hill-Briggs F,
    2. Lazo M,
    3. Peyrot M, et al
    . Effect of problem-solving-based diabetes self-management training on diabetes control in a low income patient sample. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26:972–978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Cavanaugh K,
    2. Wallston KA,
    3. Gebretsadik T, et al
    . Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2149–2155
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Diez Roux AV,
    2. Mair C
    . Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010;1186:125–145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    1. Tung EL,
    2. Cagney KA,
    3. Peek ME,
    4. Chin MH
    . Spatial context and health inequity: reconfiguring race, place, and poverty. J Urban Health 2017;94:757–763
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Institute of Medicine
    . Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health Records: Phase 2. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 2014
  74. ↵
    1. Baggett TP,
    2. Berkowitz SA,
    3. Fung V,
    4. Gaeta JM
    . Prevalence of housing problems among community health center patients. JAMA 2018;319:717–719
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Kalkhoran S,
    3. Edwards ST,
    4. Essien UR,
    5. Baggett TP
    . Unstable housing and diabetes-related emergency department visits and hospitalization: a nationally representative study of safety-net clinic patients. Diabetes Care 2018;41:933–939
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Kushel MB,
    2. Gupta R,
    3. Gee L,
    4. Haas JS
    . Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:71–77
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  77. ↵
    1. Vijayaraghavan M,
    2. Jacobs EA,
    3. Seligman H,
    4. Fernandez A
    . The association between housing instability, food insecurity, and diabetes self-efficacy in low-income adults. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2011;22:1279–1291
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Children’s Health Watch
    . Our survey. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://childrenshealthwatch.org/methods/our-survey/
  79. ↵
    U.S. Congress. H.R.558 - Stewart B. McKinney homeless assistance act, 1987. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/558
  80. ↵
    1. Henry M,
    2. Watt R,
    3. Mahathey A,
    4. Ouellette J,
    5. Sitler A
    ; Abt Associates. The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress; Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness, January 2020. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/
  81. ↵
    1. Cutts DB,
    2. Meyers AF,
    3. Black MM, et al
    . US Housing insecurity and the health of very young children. Am J Public Health 2011;101:1508–1514
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Frederick TJ,
    2. Chwalek M,
    3. Hughes J,
    4. Karabanow J,
    5. Kidd S
    . How stable is stable? Defining and measuring housing stability. J Community Psychol 2014;42:964–979
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Meltzer R,
    2. Schwartz A
    . Housing affordability and health: evidence from New York City. Hous Policy Debate 2016;26:80–104
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Keene DE,
    2. Guo M,
    3. Murillo S
    . “That wasn’t really a place to worry about diabetes”: housing access and diabetes self-management among low-income adults. Soc Sci Med 2018;197:71–77
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Quensell ML,
    2. Taira DA,
    3. Seto TB,
    4. Braun KL,
    5. Sentell TL
    . “I need my own place to get better”: patient perspectives on the role of housing in potentially preventable hospitalizations. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2017;28:784–797
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Gelberg L,
    2. Andersen RM,
    3. Leake BD
    . The Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations: application to medical care use and outcomes for homeless people. Health Serv Res 2000;34:1273–1302
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  86. ↵
    1. Bernstein RS,
    2. Meurer LN,
    3. Plumb EJ,
    4. Jackson JL
    . Diabetes and hypertension prevalence in homeless adults in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 2015;105:e46–e60
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Meigs JB,
    3. DeWalt D, et al
    . Material need insecurities, control of diabetes mellitus, and use of health care resources: results of the Measuring Economic Insecurity in Diabetes study. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:257–265
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Burgard SA,
    2. Seefeldt KS,
    3. Zelner S
    . Housing instability and health: findings from the Michigan Recession and Recovery Study. Soc Sci Med 2012;75:2215–2224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Charkhchi P,
    2. Fazeli Dehkordy S,
    3. Carlos RC
    . Housing and food insecurity, care access, and health status among the chronically ill: an analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. J Gen Intern Med 2018;33:644–650
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Stahre M,
    2. VanEenwyk J,
    3. Siegel P,
    4. Njai R
    . Housing insecurity and the association with health outcomes and unhealthy behaviors, Washington State, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 2015;12:140511
    1. Gibson M,
    2. Petticrew M,
    3. Bambra C,
    4. Sowden AJ,
    5. Wright KE,
    6. Whitehead M
    . Housing and health inequalities: a synthesis of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at different pathways linking housing and health. Health Place 2011;17:175–184
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. ↵
    1. Shaw M
    . Housing and public health. Annu Rev Public Health 2004;25:397–418
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  90. ↵
    1. Brooks LK,
    2. Kalyanaraman N,
    3. Malek R
    . Diabetes care for patients experiencing homelessness: beyond metformin and sulfonylureas. Am J Med 2019;132:408–412
    OpenUrl
  91. ↵
    1. Ludwig J,
    2. Sanbonmatsu L,
    3. Gennetian L, et al
    . Neighborhoods, obesity, and diabetes—a randomized social experiment. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1509–1519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  92. ↵
    1. Orr L,
    2. Feins JD,
    3. Jacob R, et al
    . Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, 2003. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/MTOFullReport.pdf
  93. ↵
    1. Sanbonmatsu L,
    2. Marvokov J,
    3. Porter N, et al
    . The long-term effects of Moving to Opportunity on adult health and economic self-sufficiency. Cityscape2012;14:109–136
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Baxter AJ,
    2. Tweed EJ,
    3. Katikireddi SV,
    4. Thomson H
    . Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Epidemiol Community Health 2019;73:379–387
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. ↵
    1. Tsai J,
    2. Gelberg L,
    3. Rosenheck RA
    . Changes in physical health after supported housing: results from the Collaborative Initiative to End Chronic Homelessness. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:1703–1708
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    1. Lim S,
    2. Miller-Archie SA,
    3. Singh TP,
    4. Wu WY,
    5. Walters SC,
    6. Gould LH
    . Supportive housing and its relationship with diabetes diagnosis and management among homeless persons in New York City. Am J Epidemiol 2019;188:1120–1129
    OpenUrl
  97. ↵
    1. Keene DE,
    2. Henry M,
    3. Gormley C,
    4. Ndumele C
    . ‘Then I found housing and everything changed’: transitions to rent-assisted housing and diabetes self-management. Cityscape 2018;20:107–118
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . Built environment assessment tool manual, 2019. Accessed 9 March 2020. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/built-environment-assessment/index.htm
  99. ↵
    1. Drewnowski A,
    2. Buszkiewicz J,
    3. Aggarwal A,
    4. Rose C,
    5. Gupta S,
    6. Bradshaw A
    . Obesity and the built environment: a reappraisal. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2020;28:22–30
    OpenUrl
    1. Martin A,
    2. Ogilvie D,
    3. Suhrcke M
    . Evaluating causal relationships between urban built environment characteristics and obesity: a methodological review of observational studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014;11:142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Mayne SL,
    2. Auchincloss AH,
    3. Michael YL
    . Impact of policy and built environment changes on obesity-related outcomes: a systematic review of naturally occurring experiments. Obes Rev 2015;16:362–375
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Chandrabose M,
    2. Rachele JN,
    3. Gunn L, et al
    . Built environment and cardio-metabolic health: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Obes Rev 2019;20:41–54
    OpenUrlPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Smalls BL,
    2. Gregory CM,
    3. Zoller JS,
    4. Egede LE
    . Assessing the relationship between neighborhood factors and diabetes related health outcomes and self-care behaviors. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Bilal U,
    2. Auchincloss AH,
    3. Diez-Roux AV
    . Neighborhood environments and diabetes risk and control. Curr Diab Rep 2018;18:62
    OpenUrl
  104. ↵
    1. Leal C,
    2. Chaix B
    . The influence of geographic life environments on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review, a methodological assessment and a research agenda. Obes Rev 2011;12:217–230
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  105. ↵
    1. Twohig-Bennett C,
    2. Jones A
    . The health benefits of the great outdoors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ Res 2018;166:628–637
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Durand CP,
    2. Andalib M,
    3. Dunton GF,
    4. Wolch J,
    5. Pentz MA
    . A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: implications for smart growth urban planning. Obes Rev 2011;12:e173–e182
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Petticrew M,
    2. Cummins S,
    3. Ferrell C, et al
    . Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health? Public Health 2005;119:751–757
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  108. ↵
    1. MacMillan F,
    2. George ES,
    3. Feng X, et al
    . Do natural experiments of changes in neighborhood built environment impact physical activity and diet? a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:217
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Benton JS,
    2. Anderson J,
    3. Hunter RF,
    4. French DP
    . The effect of changing the built environment on physical activity: a quantitative review of the risk of bias in natural experiments. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2016;13:107
    OpenUrlPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Amuda AT,
    2. Berkowitz SA
    . Diabetes and the built environment: evidence and policies. Curr Diab Rep 2019;19:35
    OpenUrl
  111. ↵
    1. Landrigan PJ,
    2. Fuller R,
    3. Acosta NJR, et al
    . The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. Lancet 2018;391:462–512
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Casey JA,
    2. Morello-Frosch R,
    3. Mennitt DJ,
    4. Fristrup K,
    5. Ogburn EL,
    6. James P
    . Race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, residential segregation, and spatial variation in noise exposure in the contiguous United States. Environ Health Perspect 2017;125:077017
    OpenUrl
    1. Evans GW,
    2. Kantrowitz E
    . Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:303–331
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Hajat A,
    2. Hsia C,
    3. O’Neill MS
    . Socioeconomic disparities and air pollution exposure: a global review. Curr Environ Health Rep 2015;2:440–450
    OpenUrl
    1. Miao Q,
    2. Chen D,
    3. Buzzelli M,
    4. Aronson KJ
    . Environmental equity research: review with focus on outdoor air pollution research methods and analytic tools. Arch Environ Occup Health 2015;70:47–55
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    1. Mohai P,
    2. Lantz PM,
    3. Morenoff J,
    4. House JS,
    5. Mero RP
    . Racial and socioeconomic disparities in residential proximity to polluting industrial facilities: evidence from the Americans’ Changing Lives Study. Am J Public Health 2009;99(Suppl. 3):S649–S656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Perez AC,
    2. Grafton B,
    3. Mohai P,
    4. Hardin R,
    5. Hintzen K,
    6. Orvis S
    . Evolution of the environmental justice movement: activism, formalization and differentiation. Environ Res Lett 2015;10:105002
  115. ↵
    1. Tessum CW,
    2. Apte JS,
    3. Goodkind AL, et al
    . Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019;116:6001–6006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Apelberg BJ,
    2. Buckley TJ,
    3. White RH
    . Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:693–699
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Hilpert M,
    2. Johnson M,
    3. Kioumourtzoglou MA, et al
    . A new approach for inferring traffic-related air pollution: use of radar-calibrated crowd-sourced traffic data. Environ Int 2019;127:142–159
    OpenUrl
  116. ↵
    1. Jones MR,
    2. Diez-Roux AV,
    3. Hajat A, et al
    . Race/ethnicity, residential segregation, and exposure to ambient air pollution: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Public Health 2014;104:2130–2137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Bellavia A,
    2. Zota AR,
    3. Valeri L,
    4. James-Todd T
    . Multiple mediators approach to study environmental chemicals as determinants of health disparities. Environ Epidemiol 2018;2:e015
    OpenUrl
    1. Dodd-Butera T,
    2. Beaman M,
    3. Brash M
    . Environmental health equity: a concept analysis. Annu Rev Nurs Res 2019;38:183–202
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Gee GC,
    2. Payne-Sturges DC
    . Environmental health disparities: a framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts. Environ Health Perspect 2004;112:1645–1653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Krometis LA,
    2. Gohlke J,
    3. Kolivras K,
    4. Satterwhite E,
    5. Marmagas SW,
    6. Marr LC
    . Environmental health disparities in the Central Appalachian region of the United States. Rev Environ Health 2017;32:253–266
    OpenUrl
  118. ↵
    1. Lewis J,
    2. Hoover J,
    3. MacKenzie D
    . Mining and environmental health disparities in Native American communities. Curr Environ Health Rep 2017;4:130–141
    OpenUrl
  119. ↵
    1. Powers M,
    2. Yracheta J,
    3. Harvey D, et al
    . Arsenic in groundwater in private wells in rural North Dakota and South Dakota: water quality assessment for an intervention trial. Environ Res 2019;168:41–47
    OpenUrl
    1. Fox MA,
    2. Nachman KE,
    3. Anderson B,
    4. Lam J,
    5. Resnick B
    . Meeting the public health challenge of protecting private wells: proceedings and recommendations from an expert panel workshop. Sci Total Environ 2016;554-555:113–118
    OpenUrl
  120. ↵
    1. Lee D,
    2. Murphy HM
    . Private wells and rural health: groundwater contaminants of emerging concern. Curr Environ Health Rep 2020;7:129–139
    OpenUrl
  121. ↵
    1. Groh KJ,
    2. Backhaus T,
    3. Carney-Almroth B, et al
    . Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Sci Total Environ 2019;651:3253–3268
    OpenUrl
    1. Nguyen VK,
    2. Kahana A,
    3. Heidt J, et al
    . A comprehensive analysis of racial disparities in chemical biomarker concentrations in United States women, 1999-2014. Environ Int 2020;137:105496
    OpenUrl
    1. Varshavsky JR,
    2. Morello-Frosch R,
    3. Woodruff TJ,
    4. Zota AR
    . Dietary sources of cumulative phthalates exposure among the U.S. general population in NHANES 2005-2014. Environ Int 2018;115:417–429
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  122. ↵
    1. Zota AR,
    2. Phillips CA,
    3. Mitro SD
    . Recent fast food consumption and bisphenol a and phthalates exposures among the U.S. population in NHANES, 2003-2010. Environ Health Perspect 2016;124:1521–1528
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. ↵
    1. Hartle JC,
    2. Navas-Acien A,
    3. Lawrence RS
    . The consumption of canned food and beverages and urinary Bisphenol A concentrations in NHANES 2003-2008. Environ Res 2016;150:375–382
    OpenUrl
  124. ↵
    1. Zota AR,
    2. Shamasunder B
    . The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:418.e1–418.e6
  125. ↵
    1. Kuo CC,
    2. Moon K,
    3. Thayer KA,
    4. Navas-Acien A
    . Environmental chemicals and type 2 diabetes: an updated systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Curr Diab Rep 2013;13:831–849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Maull EA,
    2. Ahsan H,
    3. Edwards J, et al
    . Evaluation of the association between arsenic and diabetes: a National Toxicology Program workshop review. Environ Health Perspect 2012;120:1658–1670
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  126. ↵
    1. Thayer KA,
    2. Heindel JJ,
    3. Bucher JR,
    4. Gallo MA
    . Role of environmental chemicals in diabetes and obesity: a National Toxicology Program workshop review. Environ Health Perspect 2012;120:779–789
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  127. ↵
    1. Song Y,
    2. Chou EL,
    3. Baecker A, et al
    . Endocrine-disrupting chemicals, risk of type 2 diabetes, and diabetes-related metabolic traits: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes 2016;8:516–532
    OpenUrlPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Evangelou E,
    2. Ntritsos G,
    3. Chondrogiorgi M, et al
    . Exposure to pesticides and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int 2016;91:60–68
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Jaacks LM,
    2. Staimez LR
    . Association of persistent organic pollutants and non-persistent pesticides with diabetes and diabetes-related health outcomes in Asia: a systematic review. Environ Int 2015;76:57–70
    OpenUrl
  129. ↵
    1. Radke EG,
    2. Galizia A,
    3. Thayer KA,
    4. Cooper GS
    . Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ Int 2019;132:104768
    OpenUrl
  130. ↵
    1. Yang BY,
    2. Fan S,
    3. Thiering E, et al
    . Ambient air pollution and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res 2020;180:108817
    OpenUrl
  131. ↵
    1. Eze IC,
    2. Hemkens LG,
    3. Bucher HC, et al
    . Association between ambient air pollution and diabetes mellitus in Europe and North America: systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2015;123:381–389
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Janghorbani M,
    2. Momeni F,
    3. Mansourian M
    . Systematic review and metaanalysis of air pollution exposure and risk of diabetes. Eur J Epidemiol 2014;29:231–242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Liu F,
    2. Chen G,
    3. Huo W, et al
    . Associations between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut 2019;252(Pt B):1235–1245
    OpenUrl
  133. ↵
    1. Liu C,
    2. Bai Y,
    3. Xu X, et al
    . Exaggerated effects of particulate matter air pollution in genetic type II diabetes mellitus. Part Fibre Toxicol 2014;11:27
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Liu C,
    2. Fonken LK,
    3. Wang A, et al
    . Central IKKβ inhibition prevents air pollution mediated peripheral inflammation and exaggeration of type II diabetes. Part Fibre Toxicol 2014;11:53
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Liu C,
    2. Ying Z,
    3. Harkema J,
    4. Sun Q,
    5. Rajagopalan S
    . Epidemiological and experimental links between air pollution and type 2 diabetes. Toxicol Pathol 2013;41:361–373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Zanobetti A,
    2. Schwartz J
    . Are diabetics more susceptible to the health effects of airborne particles? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:831–833
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  136. ↵
    1. Zanobetti A,
    2. Schwartz J
    . Cardiovascular damage by airborne particles: are diabetics more susceptible? Epidemiology 2002;13:588–592
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  137. ↵
    1. Zeka A,
    2. Zanobetti A,
    3. Schwartz J
    . Individual-level modifiers of the effects of particulate matter on daily mortality. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:849–859
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  138. ↵
    1. Nemmar A,
    2. Subramaniyan D,
    3. Yasin J,
    4. Ali BH
    . Impact of experimental type 1 diabetes mellitus on systemic and coagulation vulnerability in mice acutely exposed to diesel exhaust particles. Part Fibre Toxicol 2013;10:14
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. ↵
    1. O’Neill MS,
    2. Veves A,
    3. Zanobetti A, et al
    . Diabetes enhances vulnerability to particulate air pollution-associated impairment in vascular reactivity and endothelial function. Circulation 2005;111:2913–2920
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. ↵
    1. O’Neill MS,
    2. Veves A,
    3. Sarnat JA, et al
    . Air pollution and inflammation in type 2 diabetes: a mechanism for susceptibility. Occup Environ Med 2007;64:373–379
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  141. ↵
    1. Moon KA,
    2. Guallar E,
    3. Umans JG, et al
    . Association between exposure to low to moderate arsenic levels and incident cardiovascular disease. A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:649–659
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  142. ↵
    1. Tellez-Plaza M,
    2. Guallar E,
    3. Howard BV, et al
    . Cadmium exposure and incident cardiovascular disease. Epidemiology 2013;24:421–429
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. ↵
    1. Lamas GA,
    2. Goertz C,
    3. Boineau R, et al.; TACT Investigators
    . Effect of disodium EDTA chelation regimen on cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction: the TACT randomized trial. JAMA 2013;309:1241–1250
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. ↵
    1. Been JV,
    2. Nurmatov UB,
    3. Cox B,
    4. Nawrot TS,
    5. van Schayck CP,
    6. Sheikh A
    . Effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2014;383:1549–1560
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  145. ↵
    1. Peterson GCL,
    2. Hogrefe C,
    3. Corrigan AE,
    4. Neas LM,
    5. Mathur R,
    6. Rappold AG
    . Impact of reductions in emissions from major source sectors on fine particulate matter–related cardiovascular mortality. Environ Health Perspect 2020;128:17005
    OpenUrl
  146. ↵
    1. Ruiz-Hernandez A,
    2. Navas-Acien A,
    3. Pastor-Barriuso R, et al
    . Declining exposures to lead and cadmium contribute to explaining the reduction of cardiovascular mortality in the US population, 1988-2004. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:1903–1912
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. ↵
    1. Flanagan SV,
    2. Braman S,
    3. Puelle R, et al
    . Leveraging health care communication channels for environmental health outreach in New Jersey. J Public Health Manag Pract 2020;26:E23–E26
    OpenUrl
    1. Hadley MB,
    2. Vedanthan R,
    3. Fuster V
    . Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: a window of opportunity. Nat Rev Cardiol 2018;15:193–194
    OpenUrl
  148. ↵
    1. Wong KH,
    2. Durrani TS
    . Exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals in consumer products-a guide for pediatricians. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 2017;47:107–118
    OpenUrl
  149. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention
    . General food environment resources, 2010. Accessed 10 July 2019. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/healthyfood/general.htm
  150. ↵
    1. Swinburn B,
    2. Sacks G,
    3. Vandevijvere S, et al.; INFORMAS
    . INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support): overview and key principles. Obes Rev 2013;14(Suppl. 1):1–12
    OpenUrl
  151. ↵
    1. Glanz K,
    2. Sallis JF,
    3. Saelens BE,
    4. Frank LD
    . Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in stores (NEMS-S): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med 2007;32:282–289
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  152. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
    . Food environment atlas. Accessed 10 July 2019. Available from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-environment-atlas/2019
  153. ↵
    1. Herforth A,
    2. Ahmed S
    . The food environment, its effects on dietary consumption, and potential for measurement within agriculture-nutrition interventions. Food Secur 2015;7:505–520
    OpenUrl
    1. Lytle LA,
    2. Sokol RL
    . Measures of the food environment: a systematic review of the field, 2007-2015. Health Place 2017;44:18–34
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. McKinnon RA,
    2. Reedy J,
    3. Morrissette MA,
    4. Lytle LA,
    5. Yaroch AL
    . Measures of the food environment: a compilation of the literature, 1990-2007. Am J Prev Med 2009;36(Suppl.):S124–S133
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  154. ↵
    1. Turner C,
    2. Aggarwal A,
    3. Walls H, et al
    . Concepts and critical perspectives for food environment research: a global framework with implications for action in low- and middle-income countries. Glob Food Secur 2018;18:93–101
    OpenUrl
  155. ↵
    1. Ahern M,
    2. Brown C,
    3. Dukas S
    . A national study of the association between food environments and county-level health outcomes. J Rural Health 2011;27:367–379
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. ↵
    1. Haynes-Maslow L,
    2. Leone LA
    . Examining the relationship between the food environment and adult diabetes prevalence by county economic and racial composition: an ecological study. BMC Public Health 2017;17:648
    OpenUrl
  157. ↵
    1. Auchincloss AH,
    2. Diez Roux AV,
    3. Mujahid MS,
    4. Shen M,
    5. Bertoni AG,
    6. Carnethon MR
    . Neighborhood resources for physical activity and healthy foods and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1698–1704
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  158. ↵
    1. den Braver NR,
    2. Lakerveld J,
    3. Rutters F,
    4. Schoonmade LJ,
    5. Brug J,
    6. Beulens JWJ
    . Built environmental characteristics and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2018;16:12
    OpenUrl
  159. ↵
    1. Gebreab SY,
    2. Hickson DA,
    3. Sims M, et al
    . Neighborhood social and physical environments and type 2 diabetes mellitus in African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study. Health Place 2017;43:128–137
    OpenUrl
  160. ↵
    1. Herrick CJ,
    2. Yount BW,
    3. Eyler AA
    . Implications of supermarket access, neighbourhood walkability and poverty rates for diabetes risk in an employee population. Public Health Nutr 2016;19:2040–2048
    OpenUrl
  161. ↵
    1. Christine PJ,
    2. Auchincloss AH,
    3. Bertoni AG, et al
    . Longitudinal associations between neighborhood physical and social environments and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1311–1320
    OpenUrl
  162. ↵
    1. Meyer KA,
    2. Boone-Heinonen J,
    3. Duffey KJ, et al
    . Combined measure of neighborhood food and physical activity environments and weight-related outcomes: the CARDIA study. Health Place 2015;33:9–18
    OpenUrl
  163. ↵
    1. Tabaei BP,
    2. Rundle AG,
    3. Wu WY, et al
    . Associations of residential socioeconomic, food, and built environments with glycemic control in persons with diabetes in New York City from 2007–2013. Am J Epidemiol 2018;187:736–745
    OpenUrlPubMed
  164. ↵
    1. Kern DM,
    2. Auchincloss AH,
    3. Stehr MF, et al
    . Neighborhood price of healthier food relative to unhealthy food and its association with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Prev Med 2018;106:122–129
    OpenUrl
  165. ↵
    1. Coleman-Jensen A,
    2. Gregory C,
    3. Singh A
    . Household food security in the United States in 2013 (Economic Research Report No. 173). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2014. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45265/48787_err173.pdf?v=0
  166. ↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Lyles C,
    3. Marshall MB, et al
    . A pilot food bank intervention featuring diabetes-appropriate food improved glycemic control among clients in three states. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34:1956–1963
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  167. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Seligman HK,
    3. Choudhry NK
    . Treat or eat: food insecurity, cost-related medication underuse, and unmet needs. Am J Med 2014;127:303–310.e3
  168. ↵
    1. Walker RJ,
    2. Gebregziabher M,
    3. Martin-Harris B,
    4. Egede LE
    . Quantifying direct effects of social determinants of health on glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:80–87
    OpenUrl
    1. Walker RJ,
    2. Williams JS,
    3. Egede LE
    . Pathways between food insecurity and glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Public Health Nutr 2018;21:3237–3244
    OpenUrl
  169. ↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Schillinger D
    . Hunger and socioeconomic disparities in chronic disease. N Engl J Med 2010;363:6–9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  170. ↵
    1. Orr CJ,
    2. Keyserling TC,
    3. Ammerman AS,
    4. Berkowitz SA
    . Diet quality trends among adults with diabetes by socioeconomic status in the U.S.: 1999-2014. BMC Endocr Disord 2019;19:54
    OpenUrl
  171. ↵
    1. Drewnowski A,
    2. Eichelsdoerfer P
    . Can low-income Americans afford a healthy diet? Nutr Today 2010;44:246–249
    OpenUrlPubMed
  172. ↵
    1. Darmon N,
    2. Drewnowski A
    . Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr Rev 2015;73:643–660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Bomberg EM,
    2. Neuhaus J,
    3. Hake MM,
    4. Engelhard EM,
    5. Seligman HK
    . Food preferences and coping strategies among diabetic and nondiabetic households served by US food pantries. J Hunger Environ Nutr 2019;14:4–17
    OpenUrl
    1. Billimek J,
    2. Sorkin DH
    . Food insecurity, processes of care, and self-reported medication underuse in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the California Health Interview Survey. Health Serv Res 2012;47:2159–2168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  174. ↵
    1. Herman D,
    2. Afulani P,
    3. Coleman-Jensen A,
    4. Harrison GG
    . Food insecurity and cost-related medication underuse among nonelderly adults in a nationally representative sample. Am J Public Health 2015;105:e48–e59
    OpenUrl
  175. ↵
    1. Silverman J,
    2. Krieger J,
    3. Kiefer M,
    4. Hebert P,
    5. Robinson J,
    6. Nelson K
    . The relationship between food insecurity and depression, diabetes distress and medication adherence among low-income patients with poorly-controlled diabetes. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:1476–1480
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Leung CW,
    2. Epel ES,
    3. Willett WC,
    4. Rimm EB,
    5. Laraia BA
    . Household food insecurity is positively associated with depression among low-income supplemental nutrition assistance program participants and income-eligible nonparticipants. J Nutr 2015;145:622–627
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Arenas DJ,
    2. Thomas A,
    3. Wang J,
    4. DeLisser HM
    . A systematic review and meta-analysis of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders in US adults with food insecurity. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:2874–2882
    OpenUrl
  176. ↵
    1. Kinsey EW,
    2. Dupuis R,
    3. Oberle M,
    4. Cannuscio CC,
    5. Hillier A
    . Chronic disease self-management within the monthly benefit cycle of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Public Health Nutr 2019;22:2248–2259
    OpenUrl
  177. ↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Bindman AB,
    3. Vittinghoff E,
    4. Kanaya AM,
    5. Kushel MB
    . Food insecurity is associated with diabetes mellitus: results from the National Health Examination and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2002. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1018–1023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  178. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Karter AJ,
    3. Corbie-Smith G, et al
    . Food insecurity, food “deserts,” and glycemic control in patients with diabetes: a longitudinal analysis. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1188–1195
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  179. ↵
    1. Barnard LS,
    2. Wexler DJ,
    3. DeWalt D,
    4. Berkowitz SA
    . Material need support interventions for diabetes prevention and control: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep 2015;15:574
    OpenUrl
  180. ↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Bolger AF,
    3. Guzman D,
    4. López A,
    5. Bibbins-Domingo K
    . Exhaustion of food budgets at month’s end and hospital admissions for hypoglycemia. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33:116–123
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Davis TC,
    3. Schillinger D,
    4. Wolf MS
    . Food insecurity is associated with hypoglycemia and poor diabetes self-management in a low-income sample with diabetes. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010;21:1227–1233
    OpenUrlPubMed
  181. ↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Jacobs EA,
    3. López A,
    4. Tschann J,
    5. Fernandez A
    . Food insecurity and glycemic control among low-income patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012;35:233–238
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  182. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Baggett TP,
    3. Wexler DJ,
    4. Huskey KW,
    5. Wee CC
    . Food insecurity and metabolic control among U.S. adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3093–3099
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  183. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Karter AJ,
    3. Lyles CR, et al
    . Low socioeconomic status is associated with increased risk for hypoglycemia in diabetes patients: the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE). J Health Care Poor Underserved 2014;25:478–490
    OpenUrlPubMed
  184. ↵
    1. Heerman WJ,
    2. Wallston KA,
    3. Osborn CY, et al
    . Food insecurity is associated with diabetes self-care behaviours and glycaemic control. Diabet Med 2016;33:844–850
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. ↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Smith M,
    3. Rosenmoss S,
    4. Marshall MB,
    5. Waxman E
    . Comprehensive diabetes self-management support from food banks: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health 2018;108:1227–1234
    OpenUrlPubMed
  186. ↵
    1. Palar K,
    2. Napoles T,
    3. Hufstedler LL, et al
    . Comprehensive and medically appropriate food support is associated with improved HIV and diabetes health. J Urban Health 2017;94:87–99
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. ↵
    1. Richardson AS,
    2. Ghosh-Dastidar M,
    3. Beckman R, et al
    . Can the introduction of a full-service supermarket in a food desert improve residents’ economic status and health? Ann Epidemiol 2017;27:771–776
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. ↵
    1. Zhang YT,
    2. Mujahid MS,
    3. Laraia BA, et al
    . Association between neighborhood supermarket presence and glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Epidemiol 2017;185:1297–1303
    OpenUrlPubMed
  189. ↵
    1. Gary-Webb TL,
    2. Egnot NS,
    3. Nugroho A,
    4. Dubowitz T,
    5. Troxel WM
    . Changes in perceptions of neighborhood environment and cardiometabolic outcomes in two predominantly African American neighborhoods. BMC Public Health 2020;20:52
    OpenUrl
  190. ↵
    1. Dubowitz T,
    2. Ghosh-Dastidar M,
    3. Cohen DA, et al
    . Diet and perceptions change with supermarket introduction in a food desert, but not because of supermarket use. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34:1858–1868
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  191. ↵
    1. Baird MD,
    2. Schwartz HL,
    3. Hunter GP, et al
    . Does large-scale neighborhood reinvestment work? Effects of public–private real estate investment on local sales prices, rental prices, and crime rates. Hous Policy Debate 2020;30:164–190
    OpenUrl
  192. ↵
    1. Kazemian P,
    2. Shebl FM,
    3. McCann N,
    4. Walensky RP,
    5. Wexler DJ
    . Evaluation of the cascade of diabetes care in the United States, 2005-2016. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:1376–1385
    OpenUrl
  193. ↵
    1. Danaei G,
    2. Friedman AB,
    3. Oza S,
    4. Murray CJL,
    5. Ezzati M
    . Diabetes prevalence and diagnosis in US states: analysis of health surveys. Popul Health Metr 2009;7:16
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care 2018;41:917–928
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  195. ↵
    1. Liese AD,
    2. Ma X,
    3. Reid L, et al
    . Health care access and glycemic control in youth and young adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in South Carolina. Pediatr Diabetes 2019;20:321–329
    OpenUrl
  196. ↵
    1. Ngo-Metzger Q,
    2. Sorkin DH,
    3. Billimek J,
    4. Greenfield S,
    5. Kaplan SH
    . The effects of financial pressures on adherence and glucose control among racial/ethnically diverse patients with diabetes. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:432–437
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. ↵
    1. Lu H,
    2. Holt JB,
    3. Cheng YJ,
    4. Zhang X,
    5. Onufrak S,
    6. Croft JB
    . Population-based geographic access to endocrinologists in the United States, 2012. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:541
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  198. ↵
    1. Lòpez-DeFede A,
    2. Stewart JE
    . Diagnosed diabetes prevalence and risk factor rankings, by state, 2014–2016: a ring map visualization. Prev Chronic Dis 2019;16:E44
    OpenUrlPubMed
  199. ↵
    1. Rutledge SA,
    2. Masalovich S,
    3. Blacher RJ,
    4. Saunders MM
    . Diabetes self-management education programs in nonmetropolitan counties—United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017;66:1–6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. ↵
    1. DeVoe JE,
    2. Tillotson CJ,
    3. Wallace LS
    . Usual source of care as a health insurance substitute for U.S. adults with diabetes? Diabetes Care 2009;32:983–989
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  201. ↵
    1. Kang H,
    2. Lobo JM,
    3. Kim S,
    4. Sohn M-W
    . Cost-related medication non-adherence among U.S. adults with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;143:24–33
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Lessem SE,
    2. Pendley RP
    . QuickStats: percentage of adults aged ≥45 years who reduced or delayed medication to save money in the past 12 months among those who were prescribed medication, by diagnosed diabetes status and age—National Health Interview Survey, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;66:679
    OpenUrlPubMed
  202. ↵
    1. Patel MR,
    2. Piette JD,
    3. Resnicow K,
    4. Kowalski-Dobson T,
    5. Heisler M
    . Social determinants of health, cost-related non-adherence, and cost-reducing behaviors among adults with diabetes: findings from the National Health Interview Survey. Med Care 2016;54:796–803
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  203. ↵
    1. Herkert D,
    2. Vijayakumar P,
    3. Luo J, et al
    . Cost-related insulin underuse among patients with diabetes. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:112–114
    OpenUrl
  204. ↵
    1. Piette JD,
    2. Wagner TH,
    3. Potter MB,
    4. Schillinger D
    . Health insurance status, cost-related medication underuse, and outcomes among diabetes patients in three systems of care. Med Care 2004;42:102–109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  205. ↵
    1. Rosenthal E
    . When high prices mean needless death. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:114–115
    OpenUrl
  206. ↵
    1. Doucette ED,
    2. Salas J,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Scherrer JF
    . Insurance coverage and diabetes quality indicators among patients with diabetes in the US general population. Prim Care Diabetes 2017;11:515–521
    OpenUrl
  207. ↵
    1. Ali MK,
    2. Shah MK
    . Age and age-old disparities in diabetes care persist. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:1386–1387
    OpenUrl
  208. ↵
    1. Brown AF,
    2. Gregg EW,
    3. Stevens MR, et al
    . Race, ethnicity, socioeconomic position, and quality of care for adults with diabetes enrolled in managed care: the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2864–2870
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  209. ↵
    1. Sequist TD,
    2. Adams A,
    3. Zhang F,
    4. Ross-Degnan D,
    5. Ayanian JZ
    . Effect of quality improvement on racial disparities in diabetes care. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:675–681
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  210. ↵
    1. Heisler M,
    2. Smith DM,
    3. Hayward RA,
    4. Krein SL,
    5. Kerr EA
    . Racial disparities in diabetes care processes, outcomes, and treatment intensity. Med Care 2003;41:1221–1232
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  211. ↵
    1. Hunt CW,
    2. Grant JS,
    3. Appel SJ
    . An integrative review of community health advisors in type 2 diabetes. J Community Health 2011;36:883–893
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Little TV,
    2. Wang ML,
    3. Castro EM,
    4. Jiménez J,
    5. Rosal MC
    . Community health worker interventions for Latinos with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Curr Diab Rep 2014;14:558
    OpenUrl
    1. Norris SL,
    2. Chowdhury FM,
    3. Van Le K, et al
    . Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes. Diabet Med 2006;23:544–556
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. ↵
    1. Shah M,
    2. Kaselitz E,
    3. Heisler M
    . The role of community health workers in diabetes: update on current literature. Curr Diab Rep 2013;13:163–171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. ↵
    1. Islam N,
    2. Nadkarni SK,
    3. Zahn D,
    4. Skillman M,
    5. Kwon SC,
    6. Trinh-Shevrin C
    . Integrating community health workers within Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implementation. J Public Health Manag Pract 2015;21:42–50
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  214. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . Addressing Chronic Disease Through Community Health Workers: A Policy and Systems-Level Approach; Second Edition. Atlanta, GA, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, April 2015. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/docs/chw_brief.pdf
  215. ↵
    1. National Association of Chronic Disease Directors
    . Community programs linked to clinical services – community health workers: reimbursement/advocacy. Accessed 10 June 2020. Available from https://www.chronicdisease.org/mpage/domain4_chw_ra
  216. ↵
    1. Egbujie BA,
    2. Delobelle PA,
    3. Levitt N,
    4. Puoane T,
    5. Sanders D,
    6. van Wyk B
    . Role of community health workers in type 2 diabetes mellitus self-management: a scoping review. PLoS One 2018;13:e0198424
    OpenUrl
  217. ↵
    1. Palmas W,
    2. March D,
    3. Darakjy S, et al
    . Community health worker interventions to improve glycemic control in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:1004–1012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  218. ↵
    1. Gary TL,
    2. Batts-Turner M,
    3. Yeh HC, et al
    . The effects of a nurse case manager and a community health worker team on diabetic control, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations among urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1788–1794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  219. ↵
    1. Kangovi S,
    2. Mitra N,
    3. Grande D,
    4. Huo H,
    5. Smith RA,
    6. Long JA
    . Community health worker support for disadvantaged patients with multiple chronic diseases: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Public Health 2017;107:1660–1667
    OpenUrlPubMed
  220. ↵
    1. Kangovi S,
    2. Mitra N,
    3. Norton L, et al
    . Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:1635–1643
    OpenUrl
  221. ↵
    1. Peek ME,
    2. Cargill A,
    3. Huang ES
    . Diabetes health disparities: a systematic review of health care interventions. Med Care Res Rev 2007;64(Suppl.):101S–156S
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  222. ↵
    1. Ricci-Cabello I,
    2. Ruiz-Pérez I,
    3. Nevot-Cordero A,
    4. Rodríguez-Barranco M,
    5. Sordo L,
    6. Gonçalves DC
    . Health care interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care in African Americans: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2013;36:760–768
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  223. ↵
    1. Porterfield D,
    2. Jacobs S,
    3. Farrell K, et al
    . Evaluation of the Medicaid Coverage for the National Diabetes Prevention Program Demonstration Project: Final Report. RTI International, November 2018. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.chronicdisease.org/resource/resmgr/diabetes_dpp_materials/medicaid_demonstration_proje.pdf
  224. ↵
    1. Hill-Briggs F,
    2. Lazo M,
    3. Renosky R,
    4. Ewing C
    . Usability of a diabetes and cardiovascular disease education module in an African American, diabetic sample with physical, visual, and cognitive impairment. Rehabil Psychol 2008;53:1–8
    OpenUrl
  225. ↵
    1. Lilly CL,
    2. Bryant LL,
    3. Leary JM, et al.; MSHA
    . Evaluation of the effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention addressing barriers to cardiovascular disease prevention behaviors in 3 underserved populations: Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, 2009. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:E32
    OpenUrlPubMed
  226. ↵
    1. Boulware LE,
    2. Ephraim PL,
    3. Hill-Briggs F, et al
    . Hypertension self-management in socially disadvantaged African Americans: the Achieving Blood Pressure Control Together (ACT) randomized comparative effectiveness trial. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:142–152
    OpenUrl
  227. ↵
    1. Brown DS,
    2. Delavar A
    . The Affordable Care Act and insurance coverage for persons with diabetes in the United States. J Hosp Manag Health Policy 2018;2:2
    OpenUrl
  228. ↵
    1. Casagrande SS,
    2. McEwen LN,
    3. Herman WH
    . Changes in health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act: a national sample of U.S. adults with diabetes, 2009 and 2016. Diabetes Care 2018;41:956–962
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  229. ↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Callaghan T,
    3. Ory M,
    4. Zhao H,
    5. Bolin JN
    . The impact of Medicaid expansion on diabetes management. Diabetes Care 2020;43:1094–1101
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  230. ↵
    1. Kaufman HW,
    2. Chen Z,
    3. Fonseca VA,
    4. McPhaul MJ
    . Surge in newly identified diabetes among medicaid patients in 2014 within Medicaid expansion states under the Affordable Care Act. Diabetes Care 2015;38:833–837
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  231. ↵
    1. Zhang JX,
    2. Bhaumik D,
    3. Huang ES,
    4. Meltzer DO
    . Change in insurance status and cost-related medication non-adherence among older U.S. adults with diabetes from 2010 to 2014. J Health Med Econ 2018;4:7
    OpenUrl
  232. ↵
    1. Tunstall H,
    2. Mitchell R,
    3. Gibbs J,
    4. Platt S,
    5. Dorling D
    . Is economic adversity always a killer? Disadvantaged areas with relatively low mortality rates. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:337–343
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  233. ↵
    1. Berkman LF,
    2. Kawachi I
    1. Kawachi I,
    2. Berkman L
    . Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In Social Epidemiology. Berkman LF, Kawachi I, Eds. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 174
  234. ↵
    1. Whitehead M,
    2. Diderichsen F
    . Social capital and health: tip-toeing through the minefield of evidence. Lancet 2001;358:165–166
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  235. ↵
    1. Hawe P,
    2. Shiell A
    . Social capital and health promotion: a review. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:871–885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  236. ↵
    1. Szreter S,
    2. Woolcock M
    . Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:650–667
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Gittell R,
    2. Vidal A
    . Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc., 1998
  237. ↵
    1. Portes A
    . Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 1998;24:1–24
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  238. ↵
    1. van Staveren IP,
    2. Pervaiz Z,
    3. Chaudhary AR
    . Diversity, inclusiveness and social cohesion. ISS Working Paper Series/General Series. 2013. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/50480
  239. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Social determinants of health: evidence on social determinants of health. Accessed 25 October 2020. Available from https://www.who.int/social_determinants/themes/en/
  240. ↵
    1. Berger-Schmitt R
    . Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: concept and measurement. Soc Indic Res 2002;58:403–428
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Berger-Schmitt R,
    2. Noll HH
    . Conceptual framework and structure of a European system of social indicator. In EuroReporting Working Paper #9. Mannheim, Centre for Survey Research and Methodology, 2000
  241. ↵
    1. Chuang Y-C,
    2. Chuang K-Y,
    3. Yang T-H
    . Social cohesion matters in health. Int J Equity Health 2013;12:87
    OpenUrl
  242. ↵
    1. van Dam HA,
    2. van der Horst FG,
    3. Knoops L,
    4. Ryckman RM,
    5. Crebolder HF,
    6. van den Borne BH
    . Social support in diabetes: a systematic review of controlled intervention studies. Patient Educ Couns 2005;59:1–12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Friedman MS
    1. Taylor SE
    . Social support: a review. In The Handbook of Health Psychology. Friedman MS, Ed. New York, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 189–214
  243. ↵
    1. Strom JL,
    2. Egede LE
    . The impact of social support on outcomes in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep 2012;12:769–781
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  244. ↵
    1. Ford ME,
    2. Tilley BC,
    3. McDonald PE
    . Social support among African-American adults with diabetes, part 2: a review. J Natl Med Assoc 1998;90:425–432
    OpenUrlPubMed
  245. ↵
    1. Sarason IG,
    2. Sarason BR
    1. Thoits PA
    . Social support an psychological well-being: theoretical possibilities. In Social Support: Theory, Research, and Application. Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Eds. Hingram, MA, Kluwer, 1985, pp. 53–72
  246. ↵
    1. Flôr CR,
    2. Baldoni NR,
    3. Aquino JA, et al
    . What is the association between social capital and diabetes mellitus? A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2018;12:601–605
    OpenUrl
  247. ↵
    1. Farajzadegan Z,
    2. Jafari N,
    3. Nazer S,
    4. Keyvanara M,
    5. Zamani A
    . Social capital—a neglected issue in diabetes control: a cross-sectional survey in Iran. Health Soc Care Community 2013;21:98–103
    OpenUrl
    1. Long JA,
    2. Field S,
    3. Armstrong K,
    4. Chang VW,
    5. Metlay JP
    . Social capital and glucose control. J Community Health 2010;35:519–526
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  248. ↵
    1. Mendoza-Núñez VM,
    2. Flores-Bello C,
    3. Correa-Muñoz E,
    4. Retana-U Galde R,
    5. Ruiz-Ramos M
    . Relationship between social support networks and diabetes control and its impact on the quality of life in older community-dwelling Mexicans. Nutr Hosp 2016;33:1312–1316
    OpenUrl
  249. ↵
    1. Ciechanowski P,
    2. Russo J,
    3. Katon WJ, et al
    . Relationship styles and mortality in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33:539–544
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Trief P,
    2. Sandberg JG,
    3. Ploutz-Snyder R, et al
    . Promoting couples collaboration in type 2 diabetes: the diabetes support project pilot data. Fam Syst Health 2011;29:253–261
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Roblin DW
    . The potential of cellular technology to mediate social networks for support of chronic disease self-management. J Health Commun 2011;16(Suppl. 1):59–76
    OpenUrl
    1. Tang TS,
    2. Brown MB,
    3. Funnell MM,
    4. Anderson RM
    . Social support, quality of life, and self-care behaviors among African Americans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2008;34:266–276
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  250. ↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Norris SL,
    3. Gregg EW,
    4. Beckles G
    . Social support and mortality among older persons with diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2007;33:273–281
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  251. ↵
    1. Williams DR,
    2. Lawrence JA,
    3. Davis BA
    . Racism and health: evidence and needed research. Annu Rev Public Health 2019;40:105–125
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  252. ↵
    1. Reskin B
    . The race discrimination system. Annu Rev Sociol 2012;38:17–35
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  253. ↵
    1. Whitaker KM,
    2. Everson-Rose SA,
    3. Pankow JS, et al
    . Experiences of discrimination and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Epidemiol 2017;186:445–455
    OpenUrl
  254. ↵
    1. Bacon KL,
    2. Stuver SO,
    3. Cozier YC,
    4. Palmer JR,
    5. Rosenberg L,
    6. Ruiz-Narváez EA
    . Perceived racism and incident diabetes in the Black Women’s Health Study. Diabetologia 2017;60:2221–2225
    OpenUrl
  255. ↵
    1. Sarkar U,
    2. Piette JD,
    3. Gonzales R, et al
    . Preferences for self-management support: findings from a survey of diabetes patients in safety-net health systems. Patient Educ Couns 2008;70:102–110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  256. ↵
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
    . A Framework for Educating Health Professionals to Address the Social Determinants of Health. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 2016
  257. ↵
    1. Alley DE,
    2. Asomugha CN,
    3. Conway PH,
    4. Sanghavi DM
    . Accountable health communities—addressing social needs through Medicare and Medicaid. N Engl J Med 2016;374:8–11
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  258. ↵
    1. Gottlieb LM,
    2. Tirozzi KJ,
    3. Manchanda R,
    4. Burns AR,
    5. Sandel MT
    . Moving electronic medical records upstream: incorporating social determinants of health. Am J Prev Med 2015;48:215–218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  259. ↵
    1. Adler NE,
    2. Stead WW
    . Patients in context—EHR capture of social and behavioral determinants of health. N Engl J Med 2015;372:698–701
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  260. ↵
    1. Giuse NB,
    2. Koonce TY,
    3. Kusnoor SV, et al
    . Institute of Medicine measures of social and behavioral determinants of health: a feasibility study. Am J Prev Med 2017;52:199–206
    OpenUrlPubMed
  261. ↵
    1. Dixon B,
    2. Peña M-M,
    3. Taveras EM
    . Lifecourse approach to racial/ethnic disparities in childhood obesity. Adv Nutr 2012;3:73–82
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  262. ↵
    1. Gostin LO,
    2. Hodge JG Jr,
    3. Levin DE
    . Legal interventions to address us reductions in life expectancy. JAMA 2020;324:1037–1038
  263. ↵
    1. Thomas SB,
    2. Quinn SC,
    3. Butler J,
    4. Fryer CS,
    5. Garza MA
    . Toward a fourth generation of disparities research to achieve health equity. Annu Rev Public Health 2011;32:399–416
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  264. ↵
    1. Angulo AJ
    (Ed.). Miseducation: A History of Ignorance-Making in America and Abroad. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016
  265. ↵
    1. Douglass F.
    2. Chapter X
    , Learning to Read. In Life and Times of Frederick Douglass. New York, Citadel Press, 1983
  266. ↵
    1. Bell D
    . Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004
  267. ↵
    1. Rothstein E
    . The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York, W.W. Norton and Co. Inc., 2017
    1. Federal Housing Authority
    . Underwriting Manual. Underwriting and Valuation Procedure Under Title II of the National Housing Act. Washington, DC, Federal Housing Administration, 1936
  268. ↵
    1. Eisenhauer E
    . In poor health: supermarket redlining and urban nutrition. GeoJournal 2001;53:125–133
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 44 (1)

In this Issue

January 2021, 44(1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review
Felicia Hill-Briggs, Nancy E. Adler, Seth A. Berkowitz, Marshall H. Chin, Tiffany L. Gary-Webb, Ana Navas-Acien, Pamela L. Thornton, Debra Haire-Joshu
Diabetes Care Jan 2021, 44 (1) 258-279; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0053

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review
Felicia Hill-Briggs, Nancy E. Adler, Seth A. Berkowitz, Marshall H. Chin, Tiffany L. Gary-Webb, Ana Navas-Acien, Pamela L. Thornton, Debra Haire-Joshu
Diabetes Care Jan 2021, 44 (1) 258-279; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0053
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Definitions of Health Disparities, Health Equity, and SDOH
    • SDOH Nomenclatures and Contextual Factors
    • Review of SDOH and Diabetes
    • Linkages Across Health Care and Community Sectors to Address SDOH
    • Discussion
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.