As diabetes technology use in youth increases worldwide, inequalities in access may exacerbate disparities in hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ). We hypothesized that an increasing gap in diabetes technology use by socioeconomic status (SES) would be associated with increased HbA 1c disparities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSParticipants aged <18 years with diabetes duration ‡1 year in the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX, U.S., n 5 16,457) and Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Germany, n 5 39,836) registries were categorized into lowest (Q1) to highest (Q5) SES quintiles. Multiple regression analyses compared the relationship of SES quintiles with diabetes technology use and HbA 1c from 2010-2012 to 2016-2018. RESULTSHbA 1c was higher in participants with lower SES (in 2010-2012 and 2016-2018, respectively: 8.0% and 7.8% in Q1 and 7.6% and 7.5% in Q5 for DPV; 9.0% and 9.3% in Q1 and 7.8% and 8.0% in Q5 for T1DX). For DPV, the association between SES and HbA 1c did not change between the two time periods, whereas for T1DX, disparities in HbA 1c by SES increased significantly (P < 0.001). After adjusting for technology use, results for DPV did not change, whereas the increase in T1DX was no longer significant. CONCLUSIONSAlthough causal conclusions cannot be drawn, diabetes technology use is lowest and HbA 1c is highest in those of the lowest SES quintile in the T1DX, and this difference for HbA 1c broadened in the past decade. Associations of SES with technology use and HbA 1c were weaker in the DPV registry.

IntroductionQuality of care could be influenced by individual socio-economic status (SES) and by residential area deprivation. The objective is to synthesize the current evidence regarding inequalities in health care for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 DM).MethodsThe systematic review focuses on inequalities concerning process (e.g. measurement of HbA1c, i.e. glycolised haemoglobin) and intermediate outcome indicators (e.g. HbA1c level) of Type 2 diabetes care. In total, of n = 886 publications screened, n = 21 met the inclusion criteria.ResultsA wide variety of definitions for ‘good quality diabetes care’, regional deprivation and individual SES was observed. Despite differences in research approaches, there is a trend towards worse health care for patients with low SES, concerning both process of care and intermediate outcome indicators. Patients living in deprived areas less often achieve glycaemic control targets, tend to have higher blood pressure (BP) and worse lipid profile control.ConclusionThe available evidence clearly points to the fact that socio-economic inequalities in diabetes care do exist. Low individual SES and residential area deprivation are often associated with worse process indicators and worse intermediate outcomes, resulting in higher risks of microvascular and macrovascular complications. These inequalities exist across different health care systems. Recommendations for further research are provided.