Next Article in Journal
Effect of Punicalagin and Ellagic Acid on Human Fibroblasts In Vitro: A Preliminary Evaluation of Their Therapeutic Potential
Previous Article in Journal
Nurturing Infants to Prevent Atopic Dermatitis and Food Allergies: A Longitudinal Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/nu16010022
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Differentiates Rural and Urban Patients with Type 1 Diabetes—A Pilot Study

by
Beata I. Sińska
1,*,
Alicja Kucharska
1,
Ewa Rzońca
2,
Leszek Wronka
1,
Grażyna Bączek
2,
Robert Gałązkowski
3,
Dominik Olejniczak
4 and
Patryk Rzońca
5
1
Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, 01-445 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Didactics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, 00-575 Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Emergency Medical Services, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, 00-575 Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-007 Warsaw, Poland
5
Department of Human Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-004 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(1), 22; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010022
Submission received: 16 November 2023 / Revised: 14 December 2023 / Accepted: 19 December 2023 / Published: 20 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Diabetes)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effective management of diabetes is a complex issue and may be determined according to numerous patient-dependent and patient-independent factors. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between the place of residence and selected sociodemographic, psychological and diabetes-related parameters in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study was conducted on 419 adults with T1D using nonprobability sampling. The following questionnaires were used: the Diabetes Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index, the Acceptance of Illness Scale, the Sense of Responsibility for Health Scale, the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised scale, the Eating Attitudes Test and questions on sociodemographic and diabetes-related parameters. People living in rural areas were characterized by a significantly lower age and level of education, a higher incidence of being overweight, a higher glycated hemoglobin concentration, a lower number of glucose measurements during the day and a higher level of acceptance of the disease compared to urban residents. The degree of adherence to dietary recommendations and the sense of responsibility for one’s own health were significantly higher among urban residents. It is necessary to assess barriers to a proper diet and to increase the effectiveness in managing the disease in rural communities. Targeted actions promoting the health of type 1 diabetics need to be developed with particular emphasis on patients from rural areas.
Keywords:
diabetes; rural; urban; adults

1. Introduction

Diabetes is a dominant non-communicable disease posing a huge challenge to modern healthcare systems due to the constantly growing number of cases [1,2]. Type 1 diabetes (T1D), being a multifactorial and autoimmune disease, is characterized by the destruction of pancreatic β cells by T cells, which results in a deficiency of the synthesis and secretion of insulin [3,4]. A person diagnosed with diabetes needs to perform regular blood glucose control and monitoring, followed by adequate treatment, which means administering insulin using pens or pumps in the case of type 1 diabetes. In addition, lifestyle modifications, including proper diet, regular physical activity, weight reduction and smoking cessation, are important in T1D therapy. Acceptance of the disease by the patient and a high sense of responsibility for one’s own health are associated with better adherence to therapeutic recommendations and, consequently, have a positive effect on diabetes control, health and well-being [5,6]. Psychological aspects are crucial in the approach to the disease, therapy and self-management of diabetes, which does not change the fact that constant, regular care provided by a therapeutic team and permanent education and re-education of the patient are necessary for optimal results. In a situation where a patient is responsible for a large part of the duties related to therapy, constant contact with a physician/nurse/dietitian/physiotherapist provides strong support for the patient and plays an invaluable role in maintaining motivation [7]. The recommendations of scientific societies indicate that the education of a patient with diabetes does not end when they leave the physician’s office. The patient should be able to have constant and regular contact with the therapeutic team regardless of their place of residence [8,9]. The American Diabetes Association stated that diabetes care is frequently unsatisfactory. They also emphasized the paucity of cooperative, multidisciplinary teams that are prepared to teach adequate self-management to diabetes patients [9].
Diabetes is an essential health issue in the modern world, and its consequences affect millions of people. Therefore, factors related to its occurrence and treatment are the subject of numerous scientific studies [1,5,10,11,12,13]. The relationship between the health status of patients with diabetes and their place of residence is one of the studied areas [14,15]. It should be emphasized here that urbanization exerts a significant impact on lifestyle. It is also one of the driving forces of population health changes. On the one hand, this process contributes to better access to the resources of the healthcare system and education or social services. Conversely, due to negative lifestyle changes (increased intake of saturated fats and carbohydrates, sedentary lifestyles), the incidence of non-communicable diseases, especially obesity and diabetes, was observed to rise in relation to urbanization [14,15,16]. Furthermore, it was stated that the quality of care among rural community inhabitants is lower in comparison with the quality of care in urban communities, including access to specialized endocrine and diabetes care [17,18,19].
Undoubtedly, there are some differences between type 1 diabetics inhabiting rural and urban areas. However, the Polish literature lacks publications regarding the in-depth analysis of this issue. This study was conducted to better understand the reality of T1D therapy and self-management in terms of the place of residence with particular attention paid to the comparison of rural and urban areas.
This study aimed to analyze the relationship between the place of residence and selected sociodemographic, psychological and diabetes-related parameters in people with type 1 diabetes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Study Design

The timeframe of this study was from October 2021 to May 2023. The present authors used the diagnostic survey method with the online survey technique. A questionnaire was used as a research tool. The questionnaire was disseminated via the Google Forms web survey platform. Social media (Facebook) served as the channel for sharing the link to the questionnaire with patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (groups: mojacukrzyca.org, CUKRZYCA 24 h INFO (DIABETES 24 h info), Cukrzyca typu 1—życie bez barier i na kolorowo (Diabetes mellitus type 1—life without barriers and in color)). We obtained the consent of site/group administrators. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 18 years, a minimum of a 1-year history of type 1 diabetes and residence in Poland. Furthermore, the participants had to give their informed consent to be enrolled in the study. Eventually, the analysis included 419 individuals. Figure 1 presents a detailed scheme of the selection process.
Prior to the study, the participants were informed that it would be anonymous and the data would be confidential. No personal data were collected.
The research tool consisted of several parts. In the present authors’ part, we collected data concerning the sociodemographic aspects of the group of respondents (sex, education and place of residence) and diabetes-related information (i.e., body weight, height, current HbA1c value, method of insulin administration, duration of the disease, number of hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes, daily number of administered insulin units and insulin units per kg of body weight). All data were declared by the respondents. The second part of the questionnaire included the following:
−
The Diabetes Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index (DDGA Index), which includes up-to-date recommendations on healthy eating and behavioral therapy guidelines issued by the Polish Diabetes Association. The index is used to assess the frequency of the consumption of 29 groups of products and meal regularity. The value of the DDGA index is expressed as the sum of the points obtained (0–30 points, where 0 points is non-compliance with the recommendations, and 1 point is compliance with the recommendations regarding the frequency of the consumption of a specific product group). Higher values of the DDGA Index are associated with a higher degree of adherence to dietary recommendations [20].
−
The Acceptance of Illness Scale (AIS) questionnaire, based on Jurczyński’s adaptation, is composed of 8 statements that refer to the consequences of poor health status regarding the acceptance of limitations associated with the disease, no self-sufficiency, a sense of being dependent on others and a reduced sense of self-esteem. Each response is given a point value (strongly agree—1, strongly disagree—5). Scoring the lowest number of points (1) means a low level of adaptation to the disease, whereas strong disagreement (5 points) translates to disease acceptance. The total of 8–40 is a general outcome referring to the level of disease acceptance. With increasing acceptance, the degree of adaptation increases, and the sense of psychological discomfort decreases [21].
−
The Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised scale (DEPS-R) is a tool used to screen for eating disorders. The DEPS-R is diabetes-specific and is composed of 16 items. Respondents may select one of 6 responses on a 6-point Likert scale for each item. The total DEPS-R score ranges from 0 to 80 points. Higher overall DEPS-R scores indicate a higher likelihood of developing an eating disorder. According to the original version of the DEPS-R, a total score of 20 or above is assumed to be a threshold indicating a greater degree of disturbances [22].
−
The short version of the Eating Attitude Test EAT-26 is a standardized nutritional attitude test used as a screening tool to assess the risk of eating disorders. Individuals who score 20 or more points in the test are more likely to develop an eating disorder [23].
−
The Sense of Responsibility for Health Scale (SRHS), developed by Adamus [24], is composed of 14 items rated on a 5-point scale (1—hardly ever, 2—rarely, 3—sometimes, 4—often, 5—nearly always/very often). Only the total degree of responsibility for one’s health was subjected to evaluation in the present study. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was found to equal 0.724.
The application for the approval of the non-invasive study was submitted to and acknowledged by the Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of Warsaw.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The data collected with the questionnaire were subjected to a statistical analysis using the STATISTICA software, version 13.2 (Tibco Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). Numbers (n) and percentages (%) were used to present categorical variables, and the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) were used for continuous variables. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Lilliefors tests were used to verify the normal distributions of variables. Categorical and continuous variables were compared between urban and rural patients by using the chi-squared test and the Mann–Whitney U test, respectively. The threshold of statistical significance was assumed with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.

3. Results

The statistical analysis showed that people with type 1 diabetes living in rural areas were significantly younger (M = 30.7 years) and more often had a secondary (54.1%) or primary/vocational (10.2%) education compared to urban residents (p < 0.05). No significant differences occurred between the sex and place of residence of the respondents (p > 0.05). Detailed data are presented in Table 1.
Based on the analysis of the Body Mass Index (BMI), it was found that healthy weight (55.8%) and obesity (1.6%) were more common in urban residents (p < 0.05) (Table 2).
The analysis revealed a significant difference between the place of residence of people with T1D and the concentration of glycated hemoglobin, as well as between the place of residence and the number of glucose measurements during the day (p < 0.05). Higher HbA1c scores (M = 7.8%) and taking glucose measurements more rarely than five times a day (33.7%) were more commonly found in respondents from rural areas. Detailed data on the selected diabetes-related parameters of people with T1D, taking account of the place of residence, are included in Table 3.
No significant differences were demonstrated between the place of residence of people with T1D and the use of psychological and psychiatric assistance (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
A higher degree of disease acceptance was more common among respondents from rural areas (M = 29.1 points). Conversely, a higher level of adherence to dietary recommendations specified in the DDGA Index (M = 18.0 points) and a higher sense of responsibility for one’s own health (M = 56.3 points) were more frequently found in respondents with T1D from urban areas (p < 0.05). Detailed data are included in Table 5.

4. Discussion

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the place of residence is an important factor differentiating health status and have indicated that populations from rural areas are characterized by poorer health indices [25,26,27,28]. This situation also applies to people with diabetes; poorer health outcomes are more often observed in patients living in rural areas [29,30,31]. Interesting research on health inequalities in eastern Poland was conducted by Pantyley. She reported that people with diabetes inhabiting rural areas and small towns have poorer health compared to people from urban areas. These results are justified by such factors as less attention to preventive measures, less and more difficult availability of specialist physicians (health centers are distant from the place of residence) and fewer financial resources of rural residents [32]. According to Bolin et al., diabetes constitutes the third most important health issue in rural communities in the USA [33]. In rural communities, diabetes is 8.6% more prevalent, and the morbidity and mortality associated with it are higher compared to urban areas [34,35]. The factors responsible for such a situation include a higher percentage of uninsured people, less access to healthcare, lower financial and educational status, lack of transport and complex factors related to an increased degree of overweight and obesity compared to the urban population [34]. Importantly, 62% of the rural population is devoid of access to programs promoting self-management techniques that are effective in improving diabetes management [36].
In the present study, an attempt was made to indicate those differences between the characteristics of people with T1D inhabiting urban and rural areas that could contribute to eliminating health inequalities. This study revealed that diabetics inhabiting rural areas were younger, and their level of education was lower compared to urban residents, which was also confirmed by Gill et al. [37].
Our research also provides evidence that people with type 1 diabetes inhabiting rural areas are significantly more likely to have an abnormal body weight (overweight and underweight) compared to people from towns/cities. Based on data available from the Central Statistical Office (GUS), no differences occurred in body weight among men from rural and urban populations in terms of deficiency (0.9% vs. 1.4%) and excessive body weight (61.4% vs. 62.7%). In the case of women, the percentage of individuals with body weight deficiency in urban and rural areas was similar: 4.3% and 4.1%, and overweight and obesity were found to occur more frequently in women from rural areas compared to those from towns/cities (47.4% vs. 44.6%) [38]. A normal body weight is linked to better metabolic control of diabetes. Research conducted by Jung et al. showed that the risk of death due to any cause is much higher in underweight patients with T1D than in those with normal body weights. Overweight and obese patients showed a heterogeneous risk in studies [39]. However, Edqvist et al. confirmed that the risk of mortality and the development of cardiovascular issues, especially among men, increases along with increasing mean BMI values in individuals with type 1 diabetes [40]. Some authors emphasized that normal body weights in patients with type 1 diabetes might be associated with a decreased risk of death, particularly in men [41]. An increased body weight in people with T1D may lead to so-called double diabetes, i.e., the simultaneous occurrence of the manifestations of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. According to research, rural residents are more at risk of developing diabetes because such areas are characterized by a higher prevalence of conditions such as obesity and metabolic syndrome [42,43].
Effective management of type 1 diabetes requires regular daily monitoring of blood glucose levels and adjusting the number of insulin doses. The present study showed no significant differences regarding the method of administering insulin (pen vs. pump), the frequency of hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes and insulin units per kilogram of body weight per day between urban and rural residents. However, it was demonstrated that people with T1D living in the countryside performed significantly fewer glucose measurements compared to urban residents. Glycemic fluctuations result in a high concentration of glycated hemoglobin, which contributes to a higher risk of diabetes complications experienced by a patient [18,44]. In this study, the parameter was significantly poorer in patients living in the countryside compared to people from towns/cities. Gill et al. reported similar observations. It was shown that the mean HbA1c concentration was markedly higher in rural patients in comparison with the urban group. The rural population was characterized by high significance despite being controlled in terms of potentially confounding differences between rural and urban residents [37]. The reasons for poorer diabetes control shown in rural residents analyzed in the present study may be linked to limited access to specialized medical care. Telemedicine might be helpful in improving this situation. Currently available data describing the impact of telemedicine on the treatment outcomes of patients with T1D are limited. However, a meta-analysis of 38 studies revealed a slightly positive effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin concentrations [45]. Diabetes self-control also needs to be viewed within the framework of everyday roles and social contexts. The requirements of rural lifestyles are associated with irregular, not always predictable hours of professional and family responsibilities, which may contribute to non-compliance with certain recommendations, e.g., a lower frequency of glucose measurements. Although individuals with T1D may understand the importance of frequent/regular control of blood glucose levels and how to react in cases of hyperglycemia, they do not do so due to a number of responsibilities that have to be performed at the same time. An intense lifestyle may also influence whether a person is looking for additional information and skills to manage diabetes effectively [46,47].
Our own research shows that adherence to dietary recommendations was poorer among patients from rural communities, despite better acceptance of the disease. The results are in line with those obtained by Stumetz et al. They reported that poor adherence to attending appointments and medical recommendations, including dietary ones, appeared to be much poorer in respondents from rural areas [48]. Non-adherence to dietary recommendations by patients from rural areas may be due to the failure to take account of the specificity of cultural and nutritional norms in the proposed nutrition plans [47]. Patients want healthcare professionals to pay attention to their preferences when suggesting disease management strategies (including dietary recommendations). Such an approach is consistent with the recommendations of the Polish Society of Dietetics (2023), which indicate the need to take account of the individual nutritional and cultural preferences of the patient, as well as their age, sex, physical activity patterns and financial status. Recommendations should indicate the wide possibilities of individual choice and the composition of one’s diet. Importantly, nutrition education should be based on providing information in a practical way, enabling the application of the acquired knowledge directly in everyday life [8]. Providing dietary information on diabetes to the person mainly responsible for preparing meals and not only to the patient may be an important aspect supporting the implementation of dietary recommendations. Considering this aspect seems crucial, as roles were found to expand in rural communities, where two or more people in one household may work outside the home [49]. This study demonstrates that acceptance of the disease was more marked in rural inhabitants compared to urban ones. Acceptance of the disease is one of the most difficult stages of the disease process. It is believed that, with an increasing degree of acceptance, adaptation and life satisfaction levels increase, and the sense of mental discomfort decreases [21]. A similar observation was made by Kowalewska et al. in a study of patients with psoriasis, showing that the place of residence had an impact on life satisfaction (higher in rural residents), a sense of stigmatization (more marked in rural residents) and quality of life (greater deterioration in urban residents) [50]. Interestingly, as demonstrated in our study, higher acceptance of the disease in rural residents was not accompanied by a higher sense of responsibility for health or a higher degree of adherence to dietary recommendations. In addition, research results revealed that patients with diabetes are at a higher risk of developing mental health problems compared to people without the disease [51], and religious issues combined with self-acceptance could reduce anxiety disorders and depression in people with diabetes [52,53].
The differences observed in the present study indicate areas including barriers that had a negative influence on the self-control of the disease. Extending research in such areas may help with selecting appropriate and effective interventions and reduce health inequalities between rural and urban residents. Gap analysis and evaluations of available healthcare resources may contribute to developing a long-term vision for rural populations. It is worth considering the provision of support and offering practical solutions to people with T1D inhabiting rural areas, including a greater offer of online services and teleconsultation. Moreover, an opportunity to develop strong psychosocial support should be offered to all patients. Future research should focus on the needs of rural T1D patients to reduce disparities between urban and rural communities.
Children and adolescents with diabetes are included in the system of regional diabetes specialist care. Pediatric diabetes clinics are most often located in large urban centers. They are mainly found near provincial and university hospitals and are largely “connected” with diabetes wards, pediatric endocrinology or pediatric departments in these facilities. Conversely, care for adults with type 1 diabetes is provided by specialist diabetes clinics, primary care centers and departments of internal medicine, diabetes, endocrinology, surgery and others. In various regions of Poland, this structure is similar, but it may be focused on different aspects. Regrettably, it is also fragmented, i.e., often without a leading regional center that is well-equipped and can provide holistic care for adults with diabetes, including late complications. Access to specialized diabetes care, both on an outpatient and inpatient basis, is considerably more difficult for adults, which often contributes to the worsening of the metabolic control of diabetes. Restrictions in access to diabetes care quickly lead to the deterioration of health, especially in patients requiring an intensification of insulin therapy, developing complications and with diabetic foot syndrome. In some regions, there is a lack of well-equipped specialist clinics that provide diabetics with multi-level holistic care, including professional diabetes education, psychological support, advanced assessment and treatment of complications and the use of modern technologies [54].
The undoubted strength of this study is related to the fact that the issue was tackled in a group of individuals with type 1 diabetes, in a situation where most previous research has focused on type 2 diabetes patients. When looking for opportunities to improve disease control, factors that may contribute to it should be identified. The observations are also of practical significance in the context of developing and implementing educational interventions in this group of patients. This study is not devoid of limitations, with the main one being the small size of the study group and the convenient selection (the patients volunteered to participate in the survey themselves). The sample may not be deemed representative of the general population. Therefore, the results obtained may not be broadly generalized. We treat the conducted study as a pilot study that requires continuation in a larger group of patients. Additionally, we did not take account of cases in which people had just moved to the current rural area from an urban area or vice versa. Data on glycated hemoglobin concentrations and body weight and height were declared by the respondents. Anonymous surveys assume truthfulness and goodwill of the respondents, but obtaining such information via direct methods would be more valuable.

5. Conclusions

This pilot study showed differences between individuals with diabetes inhabiting urban and rural areas. It is necessary to assess barriers to a proper diet and to increase the effectiveness in managing the disease in rural communities. Further research should be conducted in order to develop targeted actions promoting the health of those suffering from type 1 diabetes, with particular emphasis on patients from rural areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.I.S.; methodology, B.I.S. and P.R.; formal analysis, P.R.; investigation, B.I.S. and A.K.; resources, B.I.S.; data curation, B.I.S. and L.W.; writing—original draft preparation, B.I.S. and E.R.; writing—review and editing, B.I.S., E.R., A.K., L.W., G.B., R.G., D.O. and P.R.; supervision, B.I.S.; project administration, B.I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of Warsaw. Ethics Committee Name: Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of Warsaw. Approval Code: KB/59/2018. Approval Date: 18 April 2018.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in our study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Florek-Łuszczki, M.; Choina, P.; Kostrzewa-Zabłocka, E.; Panasiuk, L.; Dziemidok, P. Medical and socio-demographic determinants of depressive disorders in diabetic patients. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2020, 27, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Grudziąż-Sękowska, J.; Sękowski, K.B.; Pinkas, J.; Jankowski, M. Blood glucose level testing in Poland—Do socio-economic factors influence its frequency? A nationwide cross-sectional survey. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2023, 30, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Akil, A.A.; Yassin, E.; Al-Maraghi, A.; Aliyev, E.; Al-Malki, K.; Fakhro, K.A. Diagnosis and treatment of type 1 diabetes at the dawn of the personalized medicine era. J. Transl. Med. 2021, 19, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Primavera, M.; Giannini, C.; Chiarelli, F. Prediction and Prevention of Type 1 Diabetes. Front. Endocrinol. 2020, 11, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kumar, D.L.; Mittal, R.; Bhalla, A.; Kumar, A.; Madan, H.; Pandhi, K.; Garg, Y.; Singh, K.; Jain, A.; Rana, S. Knowledge and Awareness About Diabetes Mellitus Among Urban and Rural Population Attending a Tertiary Care Hospital in Haryana. Cureus 2023, 15, e38359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jaworski, M.; Adamus, M.M. Health suggestibility, optimism and sense of responsibility for health in diabetic patients. Int. J. Diabetes Dev. Ctries. 2016, 36, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clark, M. Diabetes self-management education: A review of published studies. Prim. Care Diabetes 2008, 2, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Araszkiewicz, A.; Bandurska-Stankiewicz, E.; Borys, S.; Budzyński, A.; Cyganek, K.; Cypryk, K.; Czech, A.; Czupryniak, L.; Drzewoski, J.; Dzida, G. Zalecenia kliniczne dotyczące postępowania u osób z cukrzycą 2023. Stanowisko Polskiego Towarzystwa Diabetologicznego. Curr. Top. Diabetes 2023, 3, 1–136. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. El Sayed, N.A.; Aleppo, G.; Aroda, V.R.; Bannuru, R.R.; Brown, F.M.; Bruemmer, D.; Collins, B.S.; Cusi, K.; Das, S.R.; Gibbons, C.H.; et al. Summary of revisions: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care 2023, 46, S5–S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khodakarami, R.; Abdi, Z.; Ahmadnezhad, E.; Sheidaei, A.; Asadi-Lari, M. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of diabetes among Iranian population: Results of four national cross-sectional STEP wise approach to surveillance surveys. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bąk, E.; Nowak-Kapusta, Z.; Dobrzyn-Matusiak, D.; Marcisz-Dyla, E.; Marcisz, C.; Krzemińska, S.A. An assessment of diabetes-dependent quality of life (ADDQoL) in women and men in Poland with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2019, 26, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ghassab-Abdollahi, N.; Nadrian, H.; Pishbin, K.; Shirzadi, S.; Sarbakhsh, P.; Saadati, F.; Moradi, M.S.; Azar, P.S.; Zhianfar, L. Gender and urban-rural residency based differences in the prevalence of type-2 diabetes mellitus and its determinants among adults in Naghadeh: Results of IraPEN survey. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0279872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ichikawa, M.; Yamakawa, T.; Sakamoto, R.; Takahashi, K.; Suzuki, J.; Matsuura-Shinoda, M.; Shigematsu, E.; Tanaka, S.; Kaneshiro, M.; Asakura, T.; et al. A cross-sectional study of the relationship between quality of life and sleep quality in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocr. J. 2022, 69, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aung, W.P.; Htet, A.S.; Bjertness, E.; Stigum, H.; Chongsuvivatwong, V.; Kjøllesdal, M.K.R. Urban-rural differences in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus among 25–74 year-old adults of the Yangon Region, Myanmar: Two cross-sectional studies. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e020406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gajewska, M.; Gebska-Kuczerowska, A.; Gorynski, P.; Wysocki, M.J. Analyses of hospitalization of diabetes mellitus patients in Poland by gender, age and place of residence. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2013, 20, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Li, X.; Song, J.; Lin, T.; Dixon, J.; Zhang, G.; Ye, H. Urbanization and health in China, thinking at the national, local and individual levels. Environ. Health 2016, 15, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mercado, C.I.; McKeever Bullard, K.; Gregg, E.W.; Ali, M.K.; Saydah, S.H.; Imperatore, G. Differences in U.S. Rural-Urban Trends in Diabetes ABCS, 1999–2018. Diabetes Care 2021, 44, 1766–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hirsch, J.D.; Morello, C.M. Economic impact of and treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Am. J. Manag. Care 2017, 23, S231–S240. [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnston, K.J.; Wen, H.; Joynt Maddox, K.E. Lack of access to specialists associated with mortality and preventable hospitalizations of rural Medicare beneficiaries. Health Aff. 2019, 38, 1993–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sińska, B.I.; Dłużniak-Gołaska, K.; Jaworski, M.; Panczyk, M.; Duda-Zalewska, A.; Traczyk, I.; Religioni, U.; Kucharska, A. Undertaking Healthy Nutrition Behaviors by Patients with Type 1 Diabetes as an Important Element of Self-Care. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Juczyński, Z. Narzędzia pomiaru w psychologii zdrowia. Przegląd Psychol. 1999, 42, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  22. Markowitz, J.T.; Butler, D.A.; Volkening, L.K.; Antisdel, J.E.; Anderson, B.J.; Laffel, L.M. Brief screening tool for disordered eating in diabetes: Internal consistency and external validity in a contemporary sample of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rogoza, R.; Brytek-Matera, A.; Garner, D.M. Analysis of the EAT-26 in a non-clinical sample. Arch. Psych. Psych. 2016, 2, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Adamus, M.; Jaworski, M. A Sense of Responsibility for Health in Adolescents the Presentation of a new Research Tool. In Proceedings of the Conference material, European Health Psychology Research (EHPS), Innsbruck, Austria, 26–30 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  25. Miller, C.E.; Vasan, R.S. The southern rural health and mortality penalty: A review of regional health inequities in the United States. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 268, 113443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yang, T. Association between perceived environmental pollution and health among urban and rural residents-a Chinese national study. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Aljassim, N.; Ostini, R. Health literacy in rural and urban populations: A systematic review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2020, 103, 2142–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chen, X.; Orom, H.; Hay, J.L.; Waters, E.A.; Schofield, E.; Li, Y.; Kiviniemi, M.T. Differences in Rural and Urban Health Information Access and Use. J. Rural. Health 2019, 35, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kobo, O.; Van Spall, H.G.C.; Mamas, M.A. Urban-rural disparities in diabetes-related mortality in the USA 1999–2019. Diabetologia 2022, 65, 2078–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McAlexander, T.P.; Malla, G.; Uddin, J.; Lee, D.C.; Schwartz, B.S.; Rolka, D.B.; Siegel, K.R.; Kanchi, R.; Pollak, J.; Andes, L.; et al. Urban and rural differences in new onset type 2 diabetes: Comparisons across national and regional samples in the diabetes LEAD network. SSM Popul. Health 2022, 19, 101161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dugani, S.B.; Wood-Wentz, C.M.; Mielke, M.M.; Bailey, K.R.; Vella, A. Assessment of Disparities in Diabetes Mortality in Adults in US Rural vs Nonrural Counties, 1999–2018. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2232318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pantyley, V. Health inequalities among rural and urban population of Eastern Poland in the context of sustainable development. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2017, 24, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bolin, J.N.; Bellamy, G.R.; Ferdinand, A.O.; Vuong, A.M.; Kash, B.A.; Schulze, A.; Helduser, J.W. Rural Healthy People 2020: New Decade, Same Challenges. J. Rural. Health 2015, 31, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Dugani, S.B.; Mielke, M.M.; Vella, A. Burden and management of type 2 diabetes in rural United States. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 2021, 37, e3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ferdinand, A.O.; Akinlotan, M.A.; Callaghan, T.; Towne, S.D., Jr.; Bolin, J. Diabetes-related hospital mortality in the U.S.: A pooled cross-sectional study of the National Inpatient Sample. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2019, 33, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rutledge, S.A.; Masalovich, S.; Blacher, R.J.; Saunders, M.M. Diabetes self-management education programs in nonmetropolitan counties—United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 2017, 66, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gill, A.; Gothard, M.D.; Early, K.B. Glycemic outcomes among rural patients in the type 1 diabetes T1D Exchange registry, January 2016-March 2018: A cross-sectional cohort study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 2022, 10, e002564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wojtyniak, B.; Goryński, P. Health Status of Polish Population and Its Determinants; NIPH: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2020; pp. 486–508. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sytuacja Zdrowotna Ludności—OKŁADKA 2020 2. Available online: https://www.pzh.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Raport_ang_OK.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  40. Jung, H.N.; Kim, S.; Jung, C.H.; Cho, Y.K. Association between Body Mass Index and Mortality in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Obes. Metab. Syndr. 2023, 32, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Edqvist, J.; Rawshani, A.; Adiels, M.; Björck, L.; Lind, M.; Svensson, A.M.; Gudbjörnsdottir, S.; Sattar, N.; Rosengren, A. BMI, Mortality, and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes: Findings Against an Obesity Paradox. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 1297–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dahlström, E.H.; Sandholm, N.; Forsblom, C.M.; Thorn, L.M.; Jansson, F.J.; Harjutsalo, V.; Groop, P.H. Body Mass Index and Mortality in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2019, 104, 5195–5204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Trivedi, T.; Liu, J.; Probst, J.C.; Martin, A.B. The metabolic syndrome: Are rural residents at increased risk? J. Rural. Health 2013, 29, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Befort, C.A.; Nazir, N.; Perri, M.G. Prevalence of obesity among adults from rural and urban areas of the United States: Findings from NHANES (2005–2008). J. Rural. Health 2012, 28, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Turnbull, F.; Neal, B.; Algert, C.; Chalmers, J.; Chapman, N.; Cutler, J.; Woodward, M.; MacMahon, S.; Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: Results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 2005, 165, 1410–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lee, S.W.H.; Ooi, L.; Lai, Y.K. Telemedicine for the management of glycemic control and clinical outcomes of type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Jones, L.; Crabb, S.; Turnbull, D.; Oxlad, M. Barriers and facilitators to effective type 2 diabetes management in a rural context: A qualitative study with diabetic patients and health professionals. J. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Majeed-Ariss, R.; Jackson, C.; Knapp, P.; Cheater, F.M. A systematic review of research into black and ethnic minority patients’ views on self-management of type 2 diabetes. Health Expect. 2015, 18, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Stumetz, K.S.; Yi-Frazier, J.P.; Mitrovich, C.; Early, K.B. Quality of care in rural youth with type 1 diabetes: A cross-sectional pilot assessment. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care. 2016, 4, e000300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. McIlhenny, C.V.; Guzic, B.L.; Knee, D.R.; Wendekier, C.M.; Demuth, B.R.; Roberts, J.B. Using technology to deliver healthcare education to rural patients. Rural. Remote Health 2011, 11, 1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kowalewska, B.; Cybulski, M.; Jankowiak, B.; Krajewska-Kułak, E. Acceptance of Illness, Satisfaction with Life, Sense of Stigmatization, and Quality of Life among People with Psoriasis: A Cross-Sectional Study. Dermatol. Ther. 2020, 10, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kilbourne, B.; Cummings, S.M.; Levine, R.S. The influence of religiosity on depression among low-income people with diabetes. Health Soc. Work 2009, 34, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yuniarti, K.W.; Dewi, C.; Ningrum, R.P.; Widiastuti, M.; Asril, N.M. Illness perception, stress, religiosity, depression, social support, and self management of diabetes in Indonesia. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol. 2013, 2, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Modrzyńska, K.; Szadkowska, A. Transition of young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus from a pediatric to adult diabetes clinic—Problems, challenges and recommendations. Pediatr. Endocrinol. Diabetes Metab. 2014, 21, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nutrients 16 00022 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the pilot study.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the pilot study.
Nutrients 16 00022 g001
Table 1. Analysis of the relationship between the place of residence of type 1 diabetics and selected sociodemographic variables.
Table 1. Analysis of the relationship between the place of residence of type 1 diabetics and selected sociodemographic variables.
VariablesTotal
(n = 419)		Urban Area (n = 321)Rural Area
(n = 98)		p-Value
Age—M (SD) [years]33.1 (10.7)33.9 (11.3)30.7 (7.9)0.043
Sex—n (%)
Woman232 (55.4)177 (55.1)55 (56.1)0.864
Man187 (44.6)144 (44.9)43 (43.9)
Education—n (%)
Primary/vocational37 (8.8)27 (6.4)10 (10.2)0.006
Secondary174 (41.5)121 (37.7)53 (54.1)
Tertiary208 (49.6)173 (53.9)35 (35.7)
M—mean, SD—standard deviation.
Table 2. Nutritional status of type 1 diabetics, taking account of the place of residence.
Table 2. Nutritional status of type 1 diabetics, taking account of the place of residence.
VariablesTotal
(n = 419)		Urban Area (n = 321)Rural Area
(n = 98)		p-Value
BMI category—n (%)
Underweight5 (1.2)3 (0.9)2 (2.0)0.014
Healthy Weight216 (51.6)179 (55.8)37 (37.8)
Overweight192 (45.8)134 (41.7)58 (59.2)
Obesity6 (1.4)5 (1.6)1 (1.0)
Table 3. Selected diabetes-related parameters of type 1 diabetics taking account of the place of residence.
Table 3. Selected diabetes-related parameters of type 1 diabetics taking account of the place of residence.
VariablesTotal
(n = 419)		Urban Area (n = 321)Rural Area
(n = 98)		p-Value
HbA1c [%] M (SD)7.5 (1.7)7.4 (1.7)7.8 (1.7)0.013
Duration of diabetes—M (SD) [years]18.8 (9.1)19.2 (9.6)17.5 (7.1)0.396
Type of insulin therapy—n (%)
Pens226 (53.9)173 (53.9)53 (54.1)0.974
Insulin pumps193 (46.1)148 (46.1)45 (45.9)
Insulin units per kilogram of body weight per day—n (%)
<0.4112 (26.7)87 (27.1)25 (25.5)0.836
0.4–0.75207 (49.4)156 (48.6)51 (52.0)
>0.75100 (23.9)78 (24.3)22 (22.4)
Hypoglycemic episodes—n (%)
Never70 (16.7)53 (16.5)17 (17.3)0.239
1–3 times a week206 (49.2)166 (51.7)40 (40.8)
4–6 times a week121 (28.9)87 (27.1)34 (34.7)
Every day22 (5.3)15 (4.7)7 (7.1)
Diabetes control based on hypoglycemic episodes—n (%)
HbA1c ≤ 7%276 (65.9)219 (68.2)57 (58.2)0.066
HbA1c > 7%143 (34.1)102 (31.8)41 (41.8)
Hyperglycemic episodes—n (%)
Never45 (10.7)34 (10.6)11 (11.2)0.921
1–3 times a week127 (30.3)100 (31.2)27 (27.6)
4–6 times a week171 (40.8)130 (40.5)41 (41.8)
Every day76 (18.1)57 (17.8)19 (19.4)
Number of glucose measurements daily—n (%)
<5103 (24.6)70 (21.8)33 (33.7)0.001
5–9221 (52.7)185 (57.6)36 (36.7)
10 and more95 (22.7)66 (20.6)29 (29.6)
HbA1c—glycated hemoglobin, M—mean, SD—standard deviation.
Table 4. The use of psychological and psychiatric assistance/care by type 1 diabetics taking account of the place of residence.
Table 4. The use of psychological and psychiatric assistance/care by type 1 diabetics taking account of the place of residence.
VariablesTotal
(n = 419)		Urban Area (n = 321)Rural Area
(n = 98)		p-Value
Using psychological consultations—n (%)
Yes94 (22.4)76 (23.7)18 (18.4)0.270
No325 (77.6)245 (76.3)80 (81.6)
Using psychiatric consultations—n (%)
Yes66 (15.8)51 (15.9)15 (15.3)0.890
No353 (84.2)270 (84.1)83 (84.7)
Table 5. Psychological indicators and rate of adherence to dietary recommendations in type 1 diabetics taking account of the place of residence.
Table 5. Psychological indicators and rate of adherence to dietary recommendations in type 1 diabetics taking account of the place of residence.
VariablesTotal
(n = 419)		Urban Area (n = 321)Rural Area
(n = 98)		p-Value
AIS—M (SD)27.2 (8.2)26.6 (8.1)29.1 (8.2)0.006
DDGA Index—M (SD)17.7 (4.2)18.0 (4.2)16.5 (3.9)0.001
DEPS-R Scale—M (SD)16.7 (10.7)16.1 (9.8)18.7 (12.9)0.206
EAT—M (SD)10.1 (8.0)10.0 (7.6)10.4 (9.1)0.810
SRHS—M (SD)55.7 (7.7)56.3 (7.5)53.9 (8.1)0.018
AIS—Acceptance of Illness Scale; DDGA Index—Diabetes Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index; DEPS-R—Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised Scale; EAT—Eating Attitudes Test; SRHS—Sense of Responsibility for Health Scale; M—mean; SD—standard deviation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sińska, B.I.; Kucharska, A.; Rzońca, E.; Wronka, L.; Bączek, G.; Gałązkowski, R.; Olejniczak, D.; Rzońca, P. What Differentiates Rural and Urban Patients with Type 1 Diabetes—A Pilot Study. Nutrients 2024, 16, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010022

AMA Style

Sińska BI, Kucharska A, Rzońca E, Wronka L, Bączek G, Gałązkowski R, Olejniczak D, Rzońca P. What Differentiates Rural and Urban Patients with Type 1 Diabetes—A Pilot Study. Nutrients. 2024; 16(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010022

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sińska, Beata I., Alicja Kucharska, Ewa Rzońca, Leszek Wronka, Grażyna Bączek, Robert Gałązkowski, Dominik Olejniczak, and Patryk Rzońca. 2024. "What Differentiates Rural and Urban Patients with Type 1 Diabetes—A Pilot Study" Nutrients 16, no. 1: 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010022

APA Style

Sińska, B. I., Kucharska, A., Rzońca, E., Wronka, L., Bączek, G., Gałązkowski, R., Olejniczak, D., & Rzońca, P. (2024). What Differentiates Rural and Urban Patients with Type 1 Diabetes—A Pilot Study. Nutrients, 16(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010022

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop