8361 Impact of Social Vulnerability on Glycemic Control in Primary Care Patients with Diabetes
Authors: Tich Jennifer N , MacLeod Sara Rose , Zhang Victoria , Love Tanzy , Marvald Joshua , Maguire Jennifer , Fortuna Robert J 
Published: October 2024

Abstract
Disclosure: J.N. Tich: None. S.R. MacLeod: None. V. Zhang: None. T. Love: None. R.J. Fortuna: None.
Introduction: According to the CDC, 29.7 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes (DM), contributing to morbidity, mortality and strain on the healthcare system. The impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) and social vulnerability (SV), as measured by the social vulnerability index (SVI), on DM care and control is evident. In populations with lower educational attainment levels, lower income and higher rates of poverty, prevalence of DM and rates of complications are higher. However, less is understood about how the intersectionality between SDOH/SV and race impacts diabetes control. Aims: We sought to examine the impact of SV and race on DM control in primary care patients in Upstate NY. Methods: We examined 26,010 patients with DM in Upstate NY. We defined DM control based on national HEDIS standards. SVI were calculated for each patient based on census track data. The SVI is calculated based on 16 variables in four themes: socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial/ethnic minority status, and housing/transportation. SVI scores range from 0 (lowest vulnerability) to 1 (highest vulnerability). In addition to calculated SVI scores, we examined patient-reported SDOH, including food insecurity, housing insecurity, transportation, and social isolation. Race and ethnicity related parameters were self-reported. We report preliminary descriptive data. Results: Overall, 73.6% of patients were controlled with a HgA1c &lt;8% based on the HEDIS definition. Control rates varied based on race (white 75.9% Black 66.1%; Asian 73.7%; other race 66.6%), calculated SVI, and patient reported SDOH. Within each racial category, diabetes control rates worsened with increasing SVI. Patients who expressed food insecurity had lower rates of DM control than those who had no food insecurity (68.8% vs 79.7%). Similarly, patients with housing insecurity had lower control rates (67.5%) compared to those who had greater housing security (80.0%). Patients with unmet transportation needs had lower rates of diabetic control (67.4%) compared to those with stable transportation (80.6%). Additional statistical tests and multivariate regression models are pending. Conclusions: Across a large sample of patients with diabetes, increasing SV was associated with worsening glycemic control across all racial groups studied. In preliminary analyses, both race and SVI appear to be independently associated with DM control. SVI did not fully mitigate the influence of rate on DM control. Within same SVI category, non-white participants appeared to have a more negative impact on DM control compared to white participants. While SDOH are well known influences, these findings specifically demonstrate the link between SV and glycemic control, highlighting the fact that at the same SVI quartile, non-white participants may be more vulnerable to dysglycemia.
Presentation: 6/2/2024
6/2/2024