OBJECTIVEHypoglycemia is a cause of significant morbidity among patients with diabetes and may be associated with greater risk of death. We conducted a retrospective study to determine whether patient self-report of severe hypoglycemia is associated with increased mortality.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSAdult patients (N = 1,020) seen in a specialty diabetes clinic between August 2005 and July 2006 were questioned about frequency of hypoglycemia during a preencounter interview; 7 were lost to follow-up and excluded from analysis. Mild hypoglycemia was defined as symptoms managed without assistance, and severe hypoglycemia was defined as symptoms requiring external assistance. Mortality data, demographics, clinical characteristics, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were obtained from the electronic medical record after 5 years. Patients were stratified by self-report of hypoglycemia at baseline, demographics were compared using the two-sample t test, and risk of death was expressed as odds ratio (95% CI). Associations were controlled for age, sex, diabetes type and duration, CCI, HbA1c, and report of severe hypoglycemia.RESULTSIn total, 1,013 patients with type 1 (21.3%) and type 2 (78.7%) diabetes were questioned about hypoglycemia. Among these, 625 (61.7%) reported any hypoglycemia, and 76 (7.5%) reported severe hypoglycemia. After 5 years, patients who reported severe hypoglycemia had 3.4-fold higher mortality (95% CI 1.5–7.4; P = 0.005) compared with those who reported mild/no hypoglycemia.CONCLUSIONSSelf-report of severe hypoglycemia is associated with 3.4-fold increased risk of death. Patient-reported outcomes, including patient-reported hypoglycemia, may therefore augment risk stratification and disease management of patients with diabetes.

Purpose Legislation mandating disclosure of breast density (BD) information has passed in 21 states; however, actual awareness of BD and knowledge of its impact on breast cancer detection and risk are unknown. Methods We conducted a national cross-sectional survey administered in English and Spanish using a probability-based sample of screening-age women, with oversampling of Connecticut, the only state with BD legislation in effect for > 1 year before the survey. Results Of 2,311 women surveyed, 65% responded. Overall, 58% of women had heard of BD, 49% knew that BD affects breast cancer detection, and 53% knew that BD affects cancer risk. After multivariable adjustment, increased BD awareness was associated with white non-Hispanic race/ethnicity (Hispanic v white non-Hispanic: odds ratio [OR], 0.23; P < .001), household income (OR, 1.07 per category increase; P < .001), education (OR, 1.19 per category increase; P < .001), diagnostic evaluation after a mammogram (OR, 2.64; P < .001), and postmenopausal hormone therapy (OR, 1.69; P = .002). Knowledge of the masking effect of BD was associated with higher household income (OR, 1.10; P < .001), education (OR, 1.22; P = .01), prior breast biopsy (OR, 2.16; P < .001), and residing in Connecticut (Connecticut v other states: OR, 3.82; P = .003). Connecticut residents were also more likely to have discussed their BD with a health care provider (67% v 43% for residents of other US states; P = .001). Conclusion Disparities in BD awareness and knowledge exist by race/ethnicity, education, and income. BD legislation seems to be effective in increasing knowledge of BD impact on breast cancer detection. These findings support continued and targeted efforts to improve BD awareness and knowledge among women eligible for screening mammography.

Our findings demonstrate that for the surveys we examined, larger effective sample sizes (i.e., more statistical power) could have been achieved with the same amount of funding using less aggressive calling protocols. For some studies, money spent on aggressively pursuing high response rates could be better used to increase statistical power and/or to directly examine nonresponse bias.

Objective To study the effects of payment timing, form of payment, and requiring a social security number on survey response rates. Data Source Third wave mailing of a U.S. physician survey. Study Design Non-respondents were randomized to receive immediate $25 cash, immediate $25 check, promised $25 check, or promised $25 check requiring a SSN. Data Collection Methods Paper survey responses were double entered into statistical software. Principal Findings Response rates differed significantly between remuneration groups (χ23 = 80.1, p < 0.0001), with the highest rate in the immediate cash group (34%), then immediate check (20%), promised check (10%), and promised check with SSN (8%). Conclusions Immediate monetary incentives yield higher response rates than promised in this population of non-responding physicians. Promised incentives yield similarly low response rates whether or not a SSN is requested.