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.,

Several themes emerged in the statement, including a need for basic science, population-based, translational and health services studies to explore underlying mechanisms contributing to endocrine health disparities. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks have worse outcomes and higher mortality from certain disorders despite having a lower (e.g. macrovascular complications of diabetes mellitus and osteoporotic fractures) or similar (e.g. thyroid cancer) incidence of these disorders. Obesity is an important contributor to diabetes risk in minority populations and to sex disparities in thyroid cancer, suggesting that population interventions targeting weight loss may favorably impact a number of endocrine disorders. There are important implications regarding the definition of obesity in different race/ethnic groups, including potential underestimation of disease risk in Asian-Americans and overestimation in non-Hispanic black women. Ethnic-specific cut-points for central obesity should be determined so that clinicians can adequately assess metabolic risk. There is little evidence that genetic differences contribute significantly to race/ethnic disparities in the endocrine disorders examined. Multilevel interventions have reduced disparities in diabetes care, and these successes can be modeled to design similar interventions for other endocrine diseases.

Objectives. We examined the effect of an intervention to provide caloric information about sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on the number of SSB purchases. Methods. We used a case-crossover design with 4 corner stores located in low-income, predominately Black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. The intervention randomly posted 1 of 3 signs with the following caloric information: (1) absolute caloric count, (2) percentage of total recommended daily intake, and (3) physical activity equivalent. We collected data for 1600 beverage sales by Black adolescents, aged 12–18 years, including 400 during a baseline period and 400 for each of the 3 caloric condition interventions. Results. Providing Black adolescents with any caloric information significantly reduced the odds of SSB purchases relative to the baseline (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36, 0.89). When examining the 3 caloric conditions separately, the significant effect was observed when caloric information was provided as a physical activity equivalent (OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.85). Conclusions. Providing easily understandable caloric information—particularly a physical activity equivalent—may reduce calorie intake from SSBs among low-income, Black adolescents.

No abstract

Providing caloric information was associated with purchasing a smaller SSB, switching to a beverage with no calories, or opting to not purchase a beverage; there was a persistent effect on reducing SSB purchases after signs were removed.

What is already known on this topic? Food insecurity is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, and household food insecurity is more prevalent where a household member has diabetes. What is added by this report? Food bank clients at risk for diabetes were offered a year-long diabetes prevention pilot intervention near Oakland, California. The intervention featured diabetes-appropriate food, text-based education, and health care referrals. At midpoint (6 months), we found significant improvements in food security, dietary intake, physical activity, and health status. Twelve-month results were unchanged from midpoint. What are the implications for public health practice? Food banks, which serve highly vulnerable communities, can improve food security and nutrition, but further reducing chronic disease risk and improving health outcomes may require additional partnerships.

OBJECTIVETo measure relative and absolute educational disparities in mortality among U.S. adults with diabetes and to compare their magnitude with disparities observed within the nondiabetic population.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 85,867 individuals (5,007 with diabetes), aged 35–84 years, who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 1986 to 1996 were followed for mortality through 31 December 2002. Relative and absolute educational disparities in all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and non-CVD mortality were measured.RESULTSIn relative terms, the risk of all-cause mortality was 28% higher in diabetic adults with the lowest versus the highest position on the educational scale (relative index of inequality 1.28 [95% CI 1.08–1.53]). This inverse relationship reflected marked disparities in CVD mortality and was found in all age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups except Hispanics. Although substantial, this relative educational gradient in mortality among adults with diabetes was smaller than in the nondiabetic population. In absolute terms, diabetic adults with the lowest position on the educational scale suffered 503 excess deaths per 10,000 person-years of follow-up compared with those with the highest position. These absolute disparities were stronger than in the nondiabetic population. The results were even more striking for CVD mortality.CONCLUSIONSThe risk of mortality differs substantially according to educational level among individuals with diabetes in the U.S. Although relative educational disparities in mortality are weaker in adults with versus without diabetes, their absolute impact is greater and translates into a major mortality burden.

Compared with Whites, Blacks had poorer access to health care (3 vs 0.3% with no usual source of health care or health insurance, P < 0.001) and experienced greater CKD incidence (14.7 vs 12.0 cases per 1000 person-years, P < 0.001). Blacks' excess risk of CKD persisted after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle and clinical factors [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (95% CI)) = 1.21 (1.01-1.47)]. Adjustment for these factors explained 64% of the excess risk among Blacks. The increased risk for CKD among Blacks was attenuated after additional adjustment for race differences in access to health care [HR (95% CI) = 1.19 (0.99-1.45)], which explained an additional 10% of the disparity. Conclusions. In this population at risk for developing CKD, we found that poorer access to health care among Blacks explained some of Blacks' excess risk of CKD, beyond the excess risk explained by demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle and clinical factors. Improved access to health care for high-risk individuals could narrow disparities in CKD incidence.