Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content
CDC Home

Diabetes — United States, 2006 and 2010

Gloria L. Beckles, MD

Chiu-Fang Chou, DrPH

Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion


Corresponding author: Gloria L. Beckles, Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Telephone: 770-488-1272; E-mail: glb4@cdc.gov.

Introduction

In 2011, an estimated 26 million persons aged ≥20 years (11.3% of the U.S. population) had diabetes (1). Both the prevalence and incidence of diabetes have increased rapidly since the mid-1990s, with minority racial/ethnic groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups experiencing the steepest increases and most substantial effects from the disease (2–5).

This analysis and discussion of diabetes is part of the second CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report (CHDIR). The 2011 CHDIR (6) was the first CDC report to assess disparities across a wide range of diseases, behavioral risk factors, environmental exposures, social determinants, and health-care access. The 2011 CHDIR report discussed the magnitude and patterning of absolute and relative measures of disparity in the prevalence and incidence rate of medically diagnosed diabetes during 2004 and 2008 and identified marked disparities in terms of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability status, and geography (7). The topic presented in this report is based on criteria that are described in the 2013 CHDIR Introduction (8). This report updates information on disparities in prevalence and incidence rates of diagnosed diabetes presented in the 2011 CHDIR. The purposes of this report are to discuss and raise awareness about group differences in the level of diagnosed diabetes and to prompt actions to reduce these disparities.

Methods

To monitor progress toward eliminating health disparities in the prevalence and incidence rate of medically diagnosed diabetes, CDC used data from the 2006 and 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). NHIS is an ongoing, cross-sectional, in-person household interview survey of a probability sample of the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. population. Household interviews were completed for 75,716 persons in 2006 and 89,976 persons in 2010, with response rates of 87.3% and 79.5%, respectively (9,10).

The methods used to assess prevalence and incidence rates of medically diagnosed diabetes have been described previously (7). Analyses were repeated to assess disparities in each year and changes in disparity over time (11), according to the selected characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status,* geographic region as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, and disability status. Because of the association between place of birth and diabetes, the data also were examined by place of birth, defined as U.S.-born or not U.S.-born§ (12,13).

Prevalence (cases of diabetes of any duration per 100 population) was calculated for adults aged ≥18 years. Incidence rate (cases of diabetes ≤1 year's duration per 1,000 population) was calculated for adults aged 18–79 years. Estimates were standardized by the direct method to the age distribution of the U.S. 2000 Census adult population (14). Age-specific estimates were not age-standardized. CDC used software to account for the complex sample design of NHIS and to produce point estimates, standard errors, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Disparities were measured as the deviations from a referent category incidence rate or prevalence. Absolute difference was measured as the simple difference between a population subgroup estimate and the estimate for its respective reference group. The relative difference, a percentage, was calculated by dividing the difference by the value in the referent category and multiplying by 100. To assess change in disparities over time, CDC calculated change in relative difference by subtracting the relative difference in the ending time period from the relative difference for the beginning period. To test for the statistical significance of the observed absolute and relative differences, CDC used the z statistic and a 2-tailed test at p<0.05 with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons; 95% CIs were calculated. Statistically significant increases and decreases in relative differences from 2009 to 2011 were interpreted as increases and decreases in disparity, respectively. Estimates with relative standard error ≥30% were not reported.

Results

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities were identified in the age-standardized prevalence and incidence rate of medically diagnosed diabetes in 2006 and 2010 (Tables 1 and 2). In both years, overall, and for both males and females, significant absolute differences for race and ethnicity were present between non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks or Hispanics (p<0.05 for all comparisons). The only significant temporal decline in disparity was found for age-standardized prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among non-Hispanic black females (change: -23.3 percentage points; p<0.05). Temporal increases in disparities from 2006 to 2010 were identified for prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among Hispanics, with increases greater among Hispanic females (change: 34.6 percentage points; p<0.05) than among Hispanic males (change: 11.6 percentage points; p<0.05). Temporal increases in disparities in incidence rates were greater among Hispanics (change: 79.0 percentage points; p<0.05) than among non-Hispanic blacks (change: 12.6 percentage points; p<0.05).

In 2006 and 2010, the groups with the lowest levels of education and income continued to experience the greatest socioeconomic disparity in age-standardized prevalence and incidence rate of diagnosed diabetes (Tables 1 and 2). Among these disadvantaged groups, no significant change in the relative difference in prevalence occurred from 2006 to 2010, but the disparity in the incidence rate worsened over time. In addition, a significant decline in disparity in the prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes occurred among persons with a high school education (p<0.05 for both comparisons). From 2006 to 2010, age disparities in the age-standardized prevalence and age-standardized incidence rate of diagnosed diabetes worsened, and no significant change occurred in the geographic and disability disparities in age-standardized prevalence. However, for the age-standardized incidence rate, disparities between the Northeast and each of the other U.S. Census Bureau regions worsened significantly while disability disparities improved (Table 2). No significant disparities between U.S.-born and not U.S.-born persons were identified in the total population or in any racial/ethnic population.

Discussion

From 2006 to 2010, a decline occurred in the disparity between the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among non-Hispanic black women and that among white women; among men, no evidence of a decline in racial/ethnic disparities in diagnosed diabetes was identified. In addition, during the survey years, socioeconomic disparities in the incidence of diagnosed diabetes worsened among the groups with the lowest level of education and income.

Although racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the prevalence and incidence rate of diagnosed diabetes persist in the U.S. adult population, some improvements occurred from 2006 to 2010. Significant improvements were noted for prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among non-Hispanic black women compared with non-Hispanic white women, among those with a high school diploma or some college compared with those with a college degree or higher, and among the poor (IPR <1.0 federal poverty level [FPL]) and middle income (IPR 2.0–2.9 FPL) groups compared with persons whose incomes were high (IPR ≥4.0 FPL). A significant improvement also occurred in the disparity in the diabetes incidence rate by disability status.

Although improvements are noted for disparities in prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, the annual incidence of diagnosed diabetes among the U.S. population is increasing (2,4), and mortality is declining among age, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and disabled subgroups in the adult diabetic population (15,16). If these circumstances continue, then the prevalence of diabetes among the U.S. population is projected to increase to as high as 33% by 2050 (15), posing major challenges for U.S. public health. Diabetes is the principal cause of kidney failure, nontraumatic lower extremity amputation, and new cases of blindness, and it is a major cause of cardiovascular disease among U.S. adults (1). The economic costs of diagnosed diabetes reflect the substantial burden imposed on the U.S. society (18). Between 2007 and 2012, the total estimated annual cost increased by 41% (in 2007 dollars) to $245 billion, including $69 billion in reduced productivity (18). Medical expenditure among persons with diabetes is two to three times that of persons without diabetes, and the largest component (43%) of total medical expenditures attributed to diagnosed diabetes is hospital inpatient care.

Limitations

The findings presented in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, all data are self-reported and therefore subject to recall and social desirability bias. However, self-reported diabetes data have been reported to have high reliability (18,19). Second, differences were not assessed for total prevalence of diabetes (i.e., diagnosed and undiagnosed); therefore, the findings might underestimate the extent of the disparities in prevalence and incidence among the U.S. population. The percentage of persons with undiagnosed diabetes is estimated to range from 24% to 40% of the total prevalence of diabetes (1,20). However, the racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic, disability, and change over time of the disparities in prevalence and incidence of medically diagnosed diabetes provided in this report are consistent with data provided in previously published reports on diabetes risk among U.S. adults (25,12,20,21).

Conclusion

Obesity and lack of physical activity are major risk factors for diabetes (22,23). The Community Preventive Task Force has recommended several effective evidence-based interventions that communities, policy makers, and public health authorities can use to delay or prevent onset of diabetes by reducing obesity and increasing physical activity. Strategies to increase physical activity and physical fitness include communitywide campaigns, school-based physical education, and creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity (22). Interventions to prevent or control obesity include behavior interventions to reduce screen time, multicomponent counseling intended to reduce weight and maintain weight loss, and worksite programs intended to reduce weight among employees by improving diet and physical activity (23). The CDC-led National Diabetes Prevention Program (24) is designed to bring to communities strategies for adopting evidence-based lifestyle changes known to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes among adults at high risk for diabetes, including modest weight loss, increased physical activity, and reduced fat and calorie intake. Widespread implementation of these and similar interventions to prevent obesity and promote physical activity might reduce future incidence and prevalence of diabetes and reduce disparities in diabetes risk.

References

  1. CDC. National Diabetes Surveillance System: national diabetes fact sheet, 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2011. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf.
  2. CDC. National Diabetes Surveillance System. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2010. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/index.htm.
  3. Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, et al. Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in 4 major risk factors for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971–2002. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:2348–55.
  4. Narayan KM, Boyle JP, Geiss LS, Saaddine JB, Thompson TJ. Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: U.S., 2005–2050. Diabetes Care 2006;29:2114–6.
  5. Geiss LS, Pan L, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, Benjamin SM, Engelgau MM. Changes in incidence of diabetes in U.S. adults, 1997–2003. Am J Prev Med 2006;30:371–7.
  6. CDC. CDC health disparities and inequalities report—United States, 2011. MMWR 2011;60(Suppl; January 14, 2011).
  7. CDC. Diabetes—United States, 2004 and 2008. In: CDC health disparities and inequalities report—United States, 2011. MMWR 2011;60(Suppl; January 14, 2011).
  8. CDC. Introduction: CDC health disparities and inequalities report—United States, 2013. MMWR 2013;62(No. Suppl 3).
  9. Adams PF, Lucas JW, Barnes PM. Summary health statistics for the U.S. population: National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Vital Health Stat 2008(10).
  10. Adams PF, Martinez ME, Vickerie JL, Kirzinger WK. Summary health statistics for the U.S. population: National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Vital Health Stat 2011(10).
  11. Keppel K, Pamuk E, Lynch J, et al. Methodological issues in measuring health disparities. Vital Health Stat 2 2005;141:1–16.
  12. Cunningham SA, Ruben JD, Venkat Narayan KM. Health of foreign-born people in the United States: a review. Health & Place 2008;14:623–35.
  13. Huh J, Prause JA, Dooley CD. The impact of nativity on chronic diseases, self-rated health, and comorbidity status of Asian and Hispanic immigrants. J Immig Minority Health 2008;10:103–18.
  14. Anderson RN, Rosenberg HM. Age standardization of death rates: implementation of the year 2000 standard. Natl Vital Stat Rep 1998;47:1–16, 20.
  15. Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Gregg EW, Barker LE, Williamson DF. Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence. Popul Health Metrics 2010;8:29. DOI:10.1186/1478-7954-8-29.
  16. Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Saydah S, et al. Trends in death rates among U.S. adults with and without diabetes between 1997 and 2006. Diabetes Care 2012;35:1252–7.
  17. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care 2013;36. March 6, 2013. DOI: 10.2337/dc12-2625.
  18. Tisando DM, Adams JL, Liu H, et al. What is the concordance between the medical record and patient self-report as data sources for ambulatory care? Med Care 2006;44:132–40.
  19. Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ. The accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population: a critical review. Am J Prev Med 1999;17:211–29.
  20. Cowie CC, Rust KF, Ford ES, et al. Full accounting of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the U.S. population in 1988–1994 and 2005–2006. Diabetes Care 2009;32:287–94.
  21. Volpato S, Maraldi C, Fellin R. Type 2 diabetes and risk for functional decline and disability in older persons. Curr Diabetes Rev 2010;6:134–43.
  22. Community Preventive Services Task Force. Increasing physical activity. Atlanta, GA: Community Preventive Services Task Force; 2012. Available at http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/index.html.
  23. Community Preventive Services Task Force. Obesity prevention and control: interventions in community settings. Atlanta, GA: Community Preventive Services Task Force; 2012. Available at http://www.thecommunityguide.org/obesity/communitysettings.html.
  24. CDC. National Diabetes Prevention Program. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2012. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/about.htm.

* Measured as educational attainment and household income by income-to-poverty ratio [IPR]. Following the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. IPR is the total family income expressed as a ratio or percentage of the family's official poverty threshold. An IPR <1.00 or <100% of poverty denotes a family in poverty; an IPR ≥1.00 or ≥100% of the poverty threshold denotes family income equal to or higher than poverty. Official poverty thresholds are corrected for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.

Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

§ Includes U.S. citizens born abroad (one or both of whose parents were U.S. citizens), naturalized citizens, and noncitizens.


TABLE 1. Age-standardized prevalence* of medically diagnosed diabetes among adults aged ≥18 years, by selected characteristics — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2006 and 2010

Characteristic

2006

2010

Change in relative difference from 2006 to 2010 (percentage points)

Age- standardized prevalence
(%)

(95% CI)

Absolute difference (percentage points)

Relative difference (%)

Age- standardized prevalence
(%)

(95% CI)

Absolute difference (percentage points)

Relative difference (%)

Sex

Male

7.0

(6.4–7.6)

0.3

4.5

8.6

(8.1–9.2)

1.5

21.1

16.6

Female

6.7

(6.2–7.3)

Ref.

Ref.

7.1

(6.7–7.6)

Ref.

Ref.

Age group (yrs)§

18–44

2.7

(2.3–3.0)

Ref.

Ref.

2.7

(2.4–3.1)

Ref.

Ref.

45–64

11.4

(10.3–12.6)

8.8

330.2

12.3

(11.5–13.1)

9.6

350.5

20.3

65–74

18.9

(16.9–20.9)

16.3

613.2

21.8

(19.9–23.8)

19.1

698.5

85.3

≥75

18.2

(16.1–20.2)

15.6

586.8

21.7

(19.8–23.5)

19.0

694.9

108.1

Race/Ethnicity

Both sexes

White, non-Hispanic

6.0

(5.6–6.5)

Ref.

Ref.

6.8

(6.4–7.2)

Ref.

Ref.

Black, non-Hispanic

10.9

(9.8–12.1)

4.9

81.7

11.3

(10.4–12.2)

4.5

66.2

-15.5

Asian

7.4

(5.7–9.5)

1.4

23.3

7.9

(6.6–9.5)

1.1

16.2

-7.1

Mixed race/Other

10.6

(8.3–10.9)

4.6

60.0

14.0

(9.2–20.8)

7.2

105.9

45.9

Hispanic**

9.0

(7.9–10.2)

3.0

50.0

11.5

(10.8–13.0)

4.7

69.1

19.1

Male

White, non-Hispanic

6.3

(5.7–7.0)

Ref.

Ref.

7.8

(7.1–8.5)

Ref.

Ref.

Black, non-Hispanic

9.9

(8.4–11.7)

3.6

57.1

12.4

(10.9–14.0)

4.6

59.0

1.9

Asian

8.8

(6.3–12.2)

2.5

39.7

10.2

(8.1–12.7)

2.4

30.8

-8.9

Mixed race/Other

—††

NA

NA

16.3

(11.5–22.7)

8.5

109.0

NA

Hispanic

8.4

(6.9–10.2)

2.1

33.3

11.3

(9.9–12.9)

3.5

44.9

11.6

Female

White, non-Hispanic

5.8

(5.3–6.4)

Ref.

Ref.

6.0

(5.4–6.5)

Ref.

Ref.

Black, non-Hispanic

11.6

(10.0–13.4)

5.8

100.0

10.6

(9.4–11.9)

4.6

76.7

-23.3

Asian

6.3

(4.4–8.9)

0.5

8.6

6.1

(4.6–8.0)

0.1

1.7

-6.9

Mixed race/Other

8.3

(4.2–15.6)

2.5

43.1

13.5

(7.9–22.0)

7.5

125.0

81.9

Hispanic

9.4

(8.0–10.9)

3.6

62.1

11.8

(10.6–13.2)

5.8

96.7

34.6

Educational attainment (aged ≥25 years)

Less than high school

9.1

(8.3–10.1)

4.5

97.8

11.6

(10.6–12.8)

5.8

100.0

2.2

High school or equivalent

7.7

(6.8–8.7)

3.1

67.4

8.5

(7.7–9.3)

2.7

46.6

-20.8

Some college

8.0

(7.3–8.8)

3.4

74.1

8.8

(8.1–9.6)

3.0

51.7

-22.4

College degree or higher

4.6

(3.9–5.3)

Ref.

Ref.

5.8

(5.1–6.5)

Ref.

Ref.

Income-to-poverty ratio§§

Poor

10.1

(8.9–11.4)

4.6

83.1

10.6

(9.6–11.6)

4.6

71.5

-11.6

Near poor

8.1

(7.2–9.0)

2.6

46.3

9.6

(8.8–10.5)

3.4

53.9

7.7

Middle income

6.8

(6.1–7.4)

1.2

22.5

7.6

(7.0–8.2)

1.2

18.6

-4.0

High income

5.5

(4.9–6.2)

Ref.

Ref.

6.4

(5.7–7.1)

Ref.

Ref.


TABLE 1. (Continued) Age-standardized prevalence* of medically diagnosed diabetes among adults aged ≥18 years, by selected characteristics — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2006 and 2010

Characteristic

2006

2010

Change in relative difference from 2006 to 2010 (percentage points)

Age- standardized prevalence
(%)

(95% CI)

Absolute difference (percentage points)

Relative difference (%)

Age- standardized prevalence
(%)

(95% CI)

Absolute difference (percentage points)

Relative difference (%)

Place of birth

All racial/ethnic groups

U.S.-born

6.9

(6.5–7.3)

Ref.

Ref.

7.7

(7.4–8.1)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born¶¶

7.2

(6.3–8.2)

0.3

4.3

8.6

(7.8–9.5)

0.9

11.7

7.4

White, non-Hispanic

U.S.-born

6.1

(5.6–6.6)

Ref.

Ref.

6.8

(6.4–7.2)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born

4.7

(3.5–6.3)

-1.4

-23.0

6.8

(5.2–8.9)

0.0

0.0

-23.0

Black, non-Hispanic

U.S.-born

11.3

(10.1–12.6)

Ref.

Ref.

11.6

(10.6–12.7)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born

7.3

(4.6–11.4)

-4.0

-35.4

8.9

(6.6–12.0)

-2.7

-23.3

12.1

Asian/Pacific Islander

U.S.-born

5.9

(2.9–11.6)

Ref.

Ref.

8.7

(5.7–13.0)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born

8.4

(6.6–10.7)

2.5

42.4

7.8

(7.5–8.1)

-0.9

-10.3

-27.2

Hispanic

U.S.-born

9.7

(8.0–11.6)

Ref.

Ref.

13.1

(11.5–15.0)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born

8.3

(6.9–10.0)

-1.4

-14.4

10.3

(9.1–11.8)

-2.8

-21.4

-7.0

Geographic region***

Northeast

6.2

(5.3–7.3)

Ref.

Ref.

6.3

(5.4–7.4)

Ref.

Ref.

Midwest

7.1

(6.3–8.1)

0.9

14.5

7.9

(7.3–8.6)

1.6

25.4

10.9

South

7.1

(6.5–7.8)

0.9

14.5

8.8

(8.3–9.4)

2.5

39.7

25.2

West

6.6

(5.9–7.4)

0.4

6.5

7.3

(6.7–8.0)

1.0

15.9

9.4

Disability status

Has a disability

10.8

(9.9–11.8)

6.4

145.5

12.1

(11.2–13.0)

7.2

160.0

14.5

Does not have a disability

4.4

(4.0–4.8)

Ref.

Ref.

4.9

(4.6–5.3)

Ref.

Ref.

Abbreviations: 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; NA = not available; Ref. = Referent.

* Cases of diabetes of any duration per 100 population. Estimate standardized by the direct method to the U.S. Census 2000 population.

Simple difference between group estimate and Referent category significant at p<0.05 by z statistic and a 2-tailed test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

§ Age-specific estimates are not age-standardized.

Difference between the relative differences in 2010 and 2006 significant at p<0.05 by z statistic and 2-tailed test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

** Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race or combination of races.

†† Unstable estimate; relative standard error ≥30%.

§§ Following the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. The Income-to-Poverty Ratio (IPR) is the total family income expressed as a percentage of the family's official poverty threshold. An IPR <100% of poverty denotes a family in poverty; an IPR ≥100% of the poverty threshold denotes a family income equal to or higher than poverty. Official poverty thresholds are corrected for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Additional information is available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html. Poor = <1.0 times the federal poverty level (FPL), near-poor = 1.0–1.9 times FPL, middle income = 2.0–3.9 times FPL, and high income = ≥4.0 times FPL. FPL was calculated on the basis of U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds (available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

¶¶ Includes U.S. citizens born abroad (one or both of whose parents were U.S. citizens), naturalized citizens, and noncitizens.

*** Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.


TABLE 2. Age-standardized incidence rate* of medically diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 18–79 years, by selected characteristics — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2006 and 2010.

Characteristic

2006

2010

Change in relative difference from 2006 to 2010 (percentage points)

Age- standardized incidence rate

(95% CI)

Absolute difference (percentage points)

Relative difference (%)

Age- standardized incidence rate

(95% CI)

Absolute difference (percentage points)

Relative difference (%)

Sex

Male

7.6

(5.8–9.9)

0.1

0.8

8.9

(7.0–11.3)

2.8

47.0

46.2§

Female

7.5

(6.1–9.3)

Ref.

Ref.

6.0

(4.8–8.0)

Ref.

Ref.

Age group (yrs)

18–44

5.1

(3.9–6.7)

Ref.

Ref.

3.8

(2.8–5.2)

Ref.

Ref.

45–64

10.8

(8.7–13.5)

5.7

112.0

11.5

(9.4–14.0)

7.7

200.0

88.0§

65–74

10.7

(7.0–16.3)

5.6

109.4

14.7

(10.1–21.3)

10.9

283.9

174.5§

≥75

14.4

(8.1–25.4)

9.3

182.3

16.4

(9.4–28.4)

12.6

328.3

146.0§

Race/Ethnicity

Both sexes

White, non-Hispanic

6.8

(5.5–8.5)

Ref.

Ref.

6.0

(4.7–7.5)

Ref.

Ref.

Black, non-Hispanic

9.6

(6.7–13.8)

2.8

41.1

9.2

(6.6–12.6)

3.2

53.7

12.6§

Hispanic**

8.6

(5.7–13.0)

1.8

25.6

12.2

(8.8–17.0)

6.2

104.6

79.0§

Male

White, non-Hispanic

6.7

(4.7–9.6)

Ref.

Ref.

7.2

(5.1–10.0)

Ref.

Ref.

Black, non-Hispanic

10.0

(6.1–16.5)

3.3

49.6

11.8

(7.3–19.1)

4.6

64.7

15.1§

Hispanic

6.6

(3.6–11.9)

-0.1

-1.8

15.4

(9.4–25.1)

8.2

114.6

116.4§

Female

White, non-Hispanic

7.0

(5.4–9.2)

Ref.

Ref.

4.9

(3.5–6.7)

Ref.

Ref.

Black, non-Hispanic

9.3

(5.6–15.5)

2.3

32.0

7.1

(4.9–10.3)

2.2

45.7

13.7§

Hispanic

10.5

(6.0–18.4)

3.5

49.8

9.5

(6.1–14.7)

4.6

94.0

44.2§

Educational attainment (aged ≥25 yrs)

Less than high school

10.2

(7.1–14.8)

5.9

136.4

13.7

(9.5–19.6)

9.4

219.9

83.6§

High school or equivalent

10.7

(7.6–15.1)

6.4

147.1

8.3

(5.8–11.8)

4.0

93.9

-53.2§

Some college

9.9

(7.0–13.8)

5.5

127.9

10.0

(7.5–13.3)

5.7

133.3

5.4§

College degree or higher

4.3

(2.8–6.8)

Ref.

Ref.

4.3

(2.7–6.8)

Ref.

Ref.

Income-to-poverty ratio††

Poor

10.9

(6.9–17.1)

4.9

82.5

11.5

(7.5–16.3)

7.1

113.7

31.2§

Near poor

8.4

(6.1–11.1)

2.5

41.4

8.2

(5.9–11.4)

2.2

35.5

-5.9

Middle income

8.4

(6.1–11.3)

2.4

40.2

8.0

(6.0–10.7)

1.5

24.7

-15.6

High income

6.0

(3.9–9.2)

Ref.

Ref.

6.2

4.2–9.2)

Ref.

Ref.

Place of birth

All races/ethnicities

U.S.-born

7.6

(6.3–9.2)

Ref.

Ref.

7.3

(6.1–8.8)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born§§

6.6

(4.5–9.8)

-1.0

11.7

7.6

(5.1–11.5)

0.3

11.7

0.0

White, non-Hispanic

U.S.-born

6.9

(5.5–8.6)

Ref.

Ref.

6.1

(4.8–7.8)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born

¶¶

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Black, non-Hispanic

U.S.-born

9.9

(6.8–14.4)

Ref.

Ref.

10.3

(7.4–14.2)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S-born

NA

NA

††

††

NA

NA

NA

Hispanic

U.S.-born

Ref.

Ref.

14.8

(8.6–25.4)

Ref.

Ref.

Not U.S.-born

6.8

(4.1–11.2)

NA

NA

10.8

(7.2–16.3)

-4.0

-26.9

8.0

Geographic region***

Northeast

7.4

(5.2–10.6)

Ref.

Ref.

6.3

(3.9–10.1)

Ref.

Ref.

Midwest

6.7

(4.8–9.6)

-0.7

-9.0

7.2

(4.9–10.4)

0.8

13.4

22.5§

South

8.4

(6.3–11.2)

1.0

13.8

8.3

(6.5–10.4)

2.0

31.1

17.3§

West

6.6

(4.5–9.9)

-0.8

-10.5

7.2

(4.9–10.5)

0.9

13.7

24.2§

Disability status

Has a disability

14.1

(10.8–18.4)

9.2

187.2

12.0

(9.4–15.2)

6.7

125.5

-61.6§

Does not have a disability

4.9

(3.8–6.3)

Ref.

Ref.

5.3

(3.2–7.3)

Ref.

Ref.


TABLE 2. (Continued) Age-standardized incidence rate* of medically diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 18–79 years, by selected characteristics — United States, National Health Interview Survey, 2006 and 2010.

Abbreviations: 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; NA = not available; Ref. = Referent.

* Cases of diabetes of ≤1 year duration per 1,000 population. Estimates standardized by the direct method to the US Census Bureau 2000 population.

Difference between group estimate and referent group estimate statistically significant at p<0.05 by z statistic and a 2-tailed test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

§ Difference between the group relative differences in 2010 and 2006 statistically significant at p<0.05 by z statistic and a 2-tailed test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Age-specific estimates are not age-standardized.

** Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race or combination of races.

†† Following the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. The Income-to-Poverty Ratio (IPR) is the total family income expressed as a percentage of the family's official poverty threshold. An IPR <100% of poverty denotes a family in poverty; an IPR ≥100% of the poverty threshold denotes a family income equal to or higher than poverty. Official poverty thresholds are corrected for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Additional information is available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html. Poor = <1.0 times the federal poverty level (FPL), near-poor = 1.0–1.9 times FPL, middle income = 2.0–3.9 times FPL, and high income = ≥4.0 times FPL. FPL was calculated on the basis of U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds (available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

§§ Includes U.S. citizens born abroad (one or both of whose parents were U.S. citizens), naturalized citizens, and noncitizens.

¶¶ Unstable estimate; relative standard error ≥30%.

*** Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.


Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.


All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

**Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.

 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC–INFO
A-Z Index
  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #