Social vulnerability and disparities in incidence of diagnosed diabetes in the united states, 2004 to 2019
Authors: Varghese B , Lahr B , Ayanian S , Vella A , Mielke M , Bailey K , Dugani S 
Published: October 2024

Introduction

Vulnerable populations experience a higher burden of cardiovascular disease.(1) However, the incidence of cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes, within these populations, is incompletely characterized. Recently, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US CDC) developed the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to categorize counties that may be vulnerable to worse health outcomes. The SVI is composed of 4 themes: socioeconomic status (Theme 1), household composition & disability (Theme 2), minority status & language (Theme 3), and housing type & transportation (Theme 4).(2) We sought to evaluate the association of the 4 SVI themes with county incidence of diagnosed diabetes.

Method

We used CDC data (2004-2019; reported for 94% of US counties), on county incidence of diagnosed diabetes. The SVI themes were scored from 0 to 1 (low to high vulnerability) based on national percentile ranking. We used weighted least squares regression with restricted cubic splines to model the relationship between SVI themes and incidence of diagnosed diabetes (median data 2004−2019), adjusting for median age, sex ratio, state, percent uninsured, food environment index, healthcare providers, and rurality.(3) The partial effects of SVI themes and diabetes incidence were reported as F-statistics (P-values) and diabetes incidence rate ratios (IRR [95% confidence interval]), which were plotted for all values compared with the 50th percentile (SVI 0.5). For each theme, we also present the IRR for a 0.5-point increase when moving over the lower (SVI score 0.5 vs. 0.0) and the upper (1.0 vs. 0.5) half of the SVI score distribution.

Results

The 4 SVI theme rank scores were significantly associated with diabetes incidence (all, P&lt;.001). However, Theme 1 and 2 scores showed stronger associations with IRR than Theme 3 and 4 (Figure). For Theme 1, SVI score 0.5 vs. 0.0 was associated with a 15% higher incidence (IRR 1.15 [1.13–1.18]) and score 1.0 vs. 0.5 was associated with a 13% higher incidence (IRR 1.13 [1.11–1.16]). For Theme 2, SVI score 0.5 vs. 0.0 was associated with a 16% higher incidence (IRR 1.16 [1.14–1.18]), but there was no difference between rates for SVI score 1.0 vs. 0.5 (IRR 1.01 [0.99–1.03]). For Theme 3, there was no difference between SVI score 0.5 vs. 0.0 (IRR 0.98 [0.96–1.00]), but rates were 8% lower for SVI score 1.0 vs. 0.5 (IRR 0.92 [0.90–0.94]). For Theme 4, SVI score 0.5 vs. 0.0 was associated with a 3% lower incidence (IRR 0.97 [0.96–0.99]) and score 1.0 vs. 0.5 was associated with a 2% higher incidence (IRR 1.02 [1.01–1.04]).

Conclusion

In US counties, the strength and directionality of the association between SVI themes and diabetes incidence differed by theme and level of SVI scores. These themes, particularly socioeconomic status and household composition & disability may be leveraged to identify high-risk counties for primary prevention of diabetes, with implications for reduction in cardiovascular risk.