Exploring the interaction between ethnicity, deprivation and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on diabetes outcomes—A study from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists
Authors' conclusion
Ethnicity and deprivation independently influence glycaemic control. However, CGM yields equitable HbA1c improvements across all subgroups.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D or T2D initiating FreeStyle Libre, Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) national audit, UK
- Participants
- 18,139 adults
- Exposure
- Ethnicity and area-level deprivation categories
- Outcome
- Baseline HbA1c by ethnicity and deprivation
- Follow-up
- Baseline
Methodological detailsnational audit
- National audit
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
baseline
- Black vs White · SE = 1.87; higher with Black
- β 6.19; P < 0.001
- Indian vs White · SE = 1.37; lower with Indian
- β −3.50; P = 0.01
- High deprivation vs Low deprivation
- β 3.38; P < 0.001
- Moderate deprivation vs Low deprivation
- β 2.90; P < 0.001
- Very high deprivation vs Low deprivation
- β 4.54; P < 0.001
- Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) Friedman's H-statistic
- 0.088
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
HbA1c reduction with CGM · follow-up
- Significant HbA1c reductions across all Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) groups; most notable in very high deprivation areas (p < 0.001)
- −8.54%
- Reduction similar across ethnicities (all p = 1.0)
Original publication
Exploring the interaction between ethnicity, deprivation and the use of CGM on diabetes outcomes—A study from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 17 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →