Oral Abstract Presentation

CSEMO2 - CSEM: Endocrinology & Metabolism Oral Abstracts: Socioeconomic Status, Technology Use, and Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Friday, November 28, 2025

15:02 - 15:09 Toronto

Location: Room 201 A/B/C/D/E/F

Presenting Author(s)

Alexandra Katz, MD, MSc (she/her/hers)

Internal Medicine Resident
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Disclosure(s): I do not have a relationship with a for-profit and/or a not-for-profit organization to disclose

Disclosure(s):

Alexandra Katz, MD, MSc: I do not have a relationship with a for-profit and/or a not-for-profit organization to disclose

Blinded Abstract:

Background: Despite Canada’s universal healthcare systems, socioeconomic disparities in type 1 diabetes (T1D) management persist. Access to advanced diabetes technologies and specialized care remains inequitable, particularly among disadvantaged populations. However, the impact on health outcomes and quality of life remains poorly understood.

Objective: To examine differences in socioeconomic status (SES), diabetes technology use, and health outcomes among Canadian adults with T1D.

Methods: Cross-sectional study using data from a national registry of people with T1D. SES was categorized into three levels of social and material deprivation using the Canadian Deprivation Index, and group differences were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests.

Results: Participants were categorized by social (lowest: n=301; middle: n=162; highest: n=330) and material deprivation (lowest: n=382; middle: n=172; highest: n=239). Automated insulin delivery (AID) use was lower among the most socially deprived (9.6%) compared to those least deprived (15.7%, p=0.018), while continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use remained consistently high across all groups (~84%). Participants with the least material deprivation were more likely to achieve HbA1c ≤7% (41.8% vs. 25.9% vs. 33.0%, p=0.013). Antidepressant use was highest in middle deprivation groups (social: 29.2%, p=0.047; material: 31.6%, p=0.002). Diabetes complication rates did not significantly differ across SES.

Conclusion: Despite comparable CGM use and complication rates, SES-related disparities persist in AID use, glycemic outcomes, and mental health. Lower HbA1c levels among less deprived groups suggest that clinical outcomes are shaped by broader social determinants. Addressing inequities in T1D care requires structural and behavioural support beyond technology access alone.