Abstract
Aims
Workplace demands, support, and relationships differ according to employment status (e.g., employment that is full-time, part-time, or self-employed) and may lead to unequal opportunities to keep diabetic appointments. We investigated the association between employment status and outpatient diabetic appointment non-attendance among working-age adults with type 2 diabetes.
Methods
This was a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial (the Japan diabetes outcome intervention trial 2 large-scale trial). The analysis included 2010 trial participants (40–65 years old) with type 2 diabetes who were regularly followed by primary care physicians (PCPs). The outcome measure was the first non-attendance (defined as a failure to visit a PCP within 2 months of the original appointment) during the one-year follow-up. The association between baseline employment status and non-attendance was examined using Cox proportional hazard model in men and women.
Results
During the 1279 and 789 person-year follow-up periods, 90 men and 34 women, respectively, experienced their first appointment non-attendance. Among men, self-employed participants had a higher risk of non-attendance compared with full-time employees (adjusted HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.15, 2.95). The trial intervention (attendance promotion) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of non-attendance among self-employed participants (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.99). Among women, a significant association between employment status and non-attendance was not observed.
Conclusions
Self-employed men with type 2 diabetes had a twofold increased risk of non-attendance than did full-time employees. Our study suggests that self-employed men with type 2 diabetes should be targeted for interventions promoting appointment adherence.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Inadequate control of type 2 diabetes mellitus leads to increased cardiovascular complications and premature death. Non-attendance at regular diabetes outpatient appointments interrupts the continuity of care and impairs the quality of diabetes management. Among people with type 2 diabetes, non-attendance at these appointments is common and is associated with suboptimal glycemic control [1].
Three of four people with diabetes are working age (20–64 years old), and the prevalence of diabetes in this age-group is expected to increase [2]. Preventing diabetes progression in the working-age population has a substantial impact on individual health and population-level work productivity [3]. Increasing evidence suggests that work-related factors, such as workplace demands, support, and relationships, affect health behaviors [4]. These factors differ according to employment status (e.g., employment that is full-time, part-time, or self-employed) and may lead to unequal opportunities to keep regular medical appointments [5]. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm the existence of an association between employment status and health appointment non-attendance [1, 6].
Recently, a cluster-randomized trial among adults (40–65 years old) with type 2 diabetes showed that a multifaceted intervention program reduced the risk of non-attendance at regular primary care appointments [7]. The intervention consisted of reminders, patient lifestyle modification education, and clinical performance feedback for primary care providers. If deployed effectively, the study suggested that such programs may contribute to workers maintaining their continuity of diabetes care.
This study investigated the association between employment status and non-attendance at diabetic outpatient appointments among working-age adults with type 2 diabetes. Additionally, in employment status with an increased risk for appointment non-attendance, the study examined the effect of appointment attendance promotion intervention of Japan Diabetes Outcome Intervention Trial 2 large-scale trial (J-DOIT2-LT) [7]. Our goal was to better understand working-age people who have an increased risk for appointment non-attendance and, thereby, facilitate the effective allocation of interventions that promote adherence to diabetes outpatient appointments.
Methods
Study population
The study population included participants in J-DOIT2-LT, a cluster-randomized trial that evaluated the effect of a three-faceted approach that aimed to promote attendance at regular primary care appointments among adult participants with type 2 diabetes [7]; the trial protocol is available elsewhere [8]. Briefly, the trial involved 11 district medical associations (DMAs) across a broad area of Japan and involved 192 primary care physicians (PCPs). In each DMA, the PCPs were divided into two geographic clusters. Thereafter, the 22 clusters were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group, stratified by DMA. Eligible participants were enrolled between July and September 2009. Participants were eligible to participate if they were 40–65 years old and had an established type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Participants were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes mellitus; had a history of lower limb amputation or a malignant tumor within the preceding 5 years; or were on hemodialysis, pregnant, hospitalized, residing in a nursing home, or bed-ridden. For the present analysis, we further excluded participants who were retired or had missing baseline employment status information.
In the intervention group, participants received mail or telephone reminders to attend their regular appointments and six lifestyle modification education sessions conducted by trained specialists. In addition, the PCPs received monthly quality indicator feedback regarding the diabetes care they provided. The interventions continued for one year. In the control group, standard diabetes care, based on the latest practice guidelines, was provided.
Exposures and covariates
Variables used in the analysis were obtained in the following manner. At baseline, the clinical research coordinators (CRCs) reviewed each participant’s medical records and collected baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements, and medications. Upon enrollment, participants completed a self-administered questionnaire that asked about their smoking history, history of non-attendance at medical appointments, current employment status, average weekly working hours, and the number of years that had elapsed since registering with their PCP.
The main exposure variable was baseline employment status. In a self-administered questionnaire, participants were asked to choose the most appropriate category to describe their current employment status: ‘full-time employee,’ ‘part-time employee,’ ‘full-time homemaker,’ ‘retired,’ ‘never had a regular job,’ ‘disabled and unemployed,’ ‘self-employed,’ or ‘unemployed.’ Regarding employment, a small proportion of participants (1.7%) chose more than one category. These participants were assigned to the most appropriate category, based on the judgment of the trial management team. We collapsed the categories of ‘never had a regular job,’ ‘disabled and unemployed,’ and ‘unemployed’ into a single category called ‘unemployed.’ This was done because of the small numbers of participants who had never had a regular job (N = 2) or were disabled and unemployed (N = 15). Accordingly, we considered employment status as a categorical exposure variable with five levels: full-time employee, part-time employee, self-employed, unemployed, and full-time homemaker.
Outcome measure
The outcome measure was the first missed appointment (non-attendance) defined as a failure to visit a PCP within 2 months of the original appointment. In Japan, PCPs adjust the interval to the next appointment according to their patients’ condition at each appointment. The day of the event was defined as two months plus one day from the missed appointment (the planned next appointment). The follow-up began at the time of randomization and ended at the first non-attendance, when the patient was lost to follow-up, or at the end of the study period (October 2010), whichever occurred first. Trial CRCs ascertained the reason for non-attendance based on participant medical records. Non-attendances due to explicit causes (e.g., referral to another clinic, hospital admission, or moving) were excluded.
Statistical analysis
We analyzed men and women separately because the association with employment status was assumed to be qualitatively different between the sexes. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis or Fisher’s exact tests. HbA1c measurements were originally collected in the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS) units (%). The HbA1c values were reported in the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) units (mmol/mol) and National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) units (%) following appropriate conversions (NGSP [%] = 1.02*JDS [%] + 0.25, IFCC [mmol/mol] = 10.93*NGSP [%]–23.50) [9]. The crude incidence of non-attendance per 1000 person-years and the associated 95% CIs were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution. We modeled the association between employment status and time to first non-attendance using a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to estimate the HRs and 95% CIs. We used robust variance estimation to account for correlations within clusters (DMAs) and within assigned treatment groups. In Model 1, we adjusted for age. In Model 2, we further adjusted for HbA1c level, receiving diabetes treatment, BMI, and history of previous non-attendance. The selection of potential confounding factors was based on a directed acyclic graph organized with previous knowledge about the exposure and outcome predictors (Supplementary figure). Additionally, because we found that self-employed men had a higher risk of non-attendance, we evaluated the effect of appointment adherence promotion on non-attendance in self-employed men and employment status. We estimated the unadjusted HR for the intervention on appointment non-attendance using a Cox proportional hazard regression model and constructed Kaplan–Meier curves for time to non-attendance among self-employed men. In each regression analysis, we assumed that missing variables were missing at random and imputed them with multivariate imputation using chained equations. We included the patient characteristics shown in Table 1, medications, cluster identification, employment status, time to event, and events in the imputation model. We fitted the models to 100 copies of the imputed data and pooled the estimates using Rubin’s principle [10]. In addition, we compared the results with those of complete case analyses. The analyses were performed using R (version 4.0.3 and the mice package version 3.13.0, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). This study was approved by the Yokohama City University institutional review board. Because this secondary analysis used existing, de-identified trial data, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
Results
Among the 2200 participants in the J-DOIT2-LT, 2011 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this secondary analysis; 75 participants were excluded due to being retired, and 114 were excluded due to missing employment status records (Fig. 1). One male patient was also excluded due to being described as a full-time homemaker; therefore, the study included 1249 men (62.1%) and 761 women (37.9%). The median patient age was 58 (IQR, 53–61) years, and the median HbA1c level was 7.1% (IQR, 6.5–7.9) or 54 mmol/mol (IQR, 47–63); 1639 (81.5%) participants were taking oral diabetic medications and 165 (8.2%) were using insulin. The participants were classified as full-time employees (47.8%), part-time employees (14.1%), self-employed (18.0%), unemployed (9.0%), or full-time homemakers (11.1%). The employment status distribution differed between men and women (Table 1); the majority (66%) of the men were full-time employees, whereas, among women, the most common employment status was part-time employment (30%). For both sexes, full-time employees were younger than those in the other classifications at baseline (Table 1). The baseline distribution of HbA1c levels, participants receiving diabetes treatment, and history of non-attendance at appointments were similar across the various employment statuses. The numbers of missing data for each variable are also reported in Table 1. The proportions of missing variables in Model 2 were: BMI, 18.8% (378/2010); HbA1c level, 4.2% (84/2010); treatment for diabetes, 2.4% (49/2010); and history of appointment non-attendance, 1.9% (38/2010).
The median follow-up was 391 days in men and 392 days in women. For 90 men and 34 women, the first appointment non-attendance event occurred after 1279 and 789 person-years of follow-up, respectively. None of the participants were lost to follow-up, and outcome measures were ascertained in all participants. The crude incidence rate was higher for men than for women and was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (Supplementary Table 1).
The HRs for appointment non-attendance are presented in Table 2. The HRs for Model 1, Model 2 with complete case analysis, and Model 2 with multiple imputed data are compared in Supplementary Table 2. The complete case analyses for Model 2 included 77.0% (962/1249) of the men and 73.3% (558/761) of the women.
Among the men, self-employed participants had a higher risk of appointment non-attendance than did full-time employees in Model 1 (adjusted HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18, 3.04) and Model 2 (adjusted HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.15, 2.95). The complete case analysis with Model 2 showed similar findings (adjusted HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.20, 3.57) (Supplementary Table 2). The appointment attendance promotion intervention significantly reduced the risk of appointment non-attendance among the self-employed participants (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.99). The Kaplan–Meier curves separated 80 days after randomization (Fig. 2). The effect of appointment adherence promotion intervention on non-attendance across employment status in men and women is presented in Supplementary Table 3.
The crude incidence rates were lower for the women than for the men, and the estimates had wider confidence intervals (Supplementary Table 1). For women, there was no significant association between employment status and appointment non-attendance in either model (Table 2). These findings were similar to those of the complete case analysis (Supplementary Table 2).
Discussion
This study analyzed large-scale cluster randomized trial data and showed that self-employed men with type 2 diabetes had a twofold higher risk of non-attendance at regular diabetic outpatient appointments than did those who were full-time employees. Additionally, the subgroup analysis of the J-DOIT2-LT showed that compared with the standard diabetes care, the three-faceted adherence promotion intervention resulted in a lower risk of appointment non-attendance among self-employed men. Our study results suggest that an intervention approach that targets self-employed men (a high-risk target group) is a promising strategy for preventing diabetes progression in the working-age population.
Appointment non-attendance is common for people with diabetes. In one report, 8% of participants missed one-third of their appointments each year [1]. These participants had a mean HbA1c level that was 0.7 points higher than that for participants attending all of their appointments in a year. In addition to poor glycemic control, non-attendance was associated with subsequent hospital admissions or emergency department visits [11, 12]. Several other studies have reported increased cardiovascular complications among non-attenders [13,14,15]. Among people with type 1 diabetes, appointment non-attendance is also associated with higher all-cause mortality rates [16]. The patient characteristics associated with appointment non-attendance have been diverse and inconsistent between studies. Younger age, smoking, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and higher HbA1c levels have been repeatedly reported as predictors of non-attendance [6]. Several qualitative studies have explored the causes of non-attendance. Illness perception, bureaucratic processes, logistical problems, and healthcare professional–patient relationships have been shown to be important factors affecting appointment attendance [17, 18].
Work-related factors, such as workplace demands, control, support, and relationships, are considered to have an impact on appointment non-attendance among working-age adults [5]. Self-employed individuals have been previously reported to have higher job control and to be more flexible in adjusting their working conditions in the event of chronic illnesses. Among the 1389 participants (50–60 years old) in the English Longitudinal Study of Aging study, self-employed individuals reported significantly higher job autonomy than other employees, at baseline. After the first diagnosis of a chronic illness during the follow-up, self-employed individuals were able to adjust the physical demands of their work, but other employees were less able to do so [19].
Our study findings contrasted with the traditional views of self-employed individuals. In this study, self-employed individuals showed a higher risk of appointment non-attendance than did full-time employees. Patient characteristics, known as predictors of non-attendance, could not fully explain the observed association, in our study. At baseline, HbA1c levels and smoking status were similar between the self-employed and full-time employees. Moreover, the association between self-employment and appointment non-attendance remained, even after adjusting for age, HbA1c level, being treated for diabetes, BMI, and number of previous non-attendance events. These results suggest that the mechanism behind appointment non-attendance among self-employed workers must lay among the work-related factors.
Being self-employed has several disadvantages, such as social isolation, economic insecurity, and inadequate workers’ compensation. For example, in Japan, every employee regardless of full-time or part-time employment is offered up to 20 days of national paid leave, which is not guaranteed among self-employed. Among these, a lack of peers at the workplace may negatively impact health behaviors. A growing body of literature has reported that social interactions affect individual behaviors. In an analysis of the Framingham Heart Study, smoking cessation by a coworker in a small-sized company increased the chances of cessation among the employee’s counterparts by 34% (95% CI, 5, 56) [20]. A study from Austria showed that an individual’s participation in a health-screening program, after moving to a new company, depends on the participation level of their new peers [21]. These findings support the idea that decisions to adhere to health advice are influenced by co-worker behaviors and not solely by the individual. Self-employed participants do not benefit from the collective influence of their peers’ health-related behaviors, possibly leading to the observed increased risk of appointment non-attendance.
Among women, the present analysis did not show a significant association between employment status and appointment non-attendance. The comparisons with full-time employees showed insignificant differences for any of the other employment categories. The absence of any association between appointment attendance and employment classification, among women, may be due to the small number of events and imprecise estimations included in this study. In addition, women generally do more unpaid labor outside of their primary employment; thus, employment status may not sufficiently reflect the barriers to appointment attendance faced by women [5]. Reducing domestic labor or improving health care access from home (e.g., telehealth) would probably be a promising approach toward women.
Several rationales support the suggestion that appointment attendance promotion should be directed toward self-employed individuals. First, the intervention examined in the J-DOIT2-LT was resource-consuming and, thus, requires focused allocation to the high-risk populations. Second, attendance at health checkups is lower among self-employed individuals than among full-time employees [22, 23]. Once self-employed individuals discontinue regular primary care follow-ups, diabetes progression becomes more difficult to identify. Thus, these considerations support interventions that focus on individuals with type 2 diabetes who are at high risk of appointment non-attendance.
Our study had some limitations. First, the study population was limited to participants in a cluster-randomized trial. However, participants were recruited from across the country and most who met the eligibility requirements were enrolled (Fig. 1). Those who met the exclusion criteria in the trial were dependent or required special support to attend their appointments. Thus, the study population was representative of working-age individuals (40–65 years old) with type 2 diabetes who are able to regularly visit their PCPs. Of note, our study results are not directly applicable to the younger individuals (20–39 years old) with type 2 diabetes. Second, several characteristics of the working environment were not collected, such as the company size, employee job class (managerial versus non-managerial), and the types of self-employed jobs involved (e.g., small business owners, independent contractors, farmers). Detailed information will clarify where barriers to appointment attendance exist. Third, educational status information was unavailable. Education predicts both employment status and appointment non-attendance; thus, it may be a confounding factor [24]. We incorporated BMI into Model 2 as a proxy for education. Fourth, we defined appointment non-attendance as a failure to visit a PCP within 2 months of the original appointment. Compared with other studies, we believe that we were more successful at distinguishing clinically relevant appointment non-attendance; however, our exclusion of appointment non-attendance events that did not result in a loss of diabetes care may have been incomplete. Fifth, the number of part-time employees and unemployed was small among men, meaning that the associations with appointment non-attendance in these subgroups could not be addressed with precision.
In conclusion, among adult participants with type 2 diabetes who were followed by PCPs, self-employed men had a higher risk of appointment non-attendance within the one-year follow-up included in this study. Multifaceted appointment adherence promotion interventions for working-age people with type 2 diabetes should target self-employed men.
References
Karter AJ, Parker MM, Moffet HH et al (2004) Missed appointments and poor glycemic control: an opportunity to identify high-risk diabetic patients. Med Care 42(2):110–115. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000109023.64650.73
International Diabetes Federation (2019) IDF Diabetes Atlas, 9th edn. Brussels, Belgium: 2019. https://diabetesatlas.org/atlas/ninth-edition/. Accessed November 10, 2021
Magliano DJ, Martin VJ, Owen AJ, Zomer E, Liew D (2018) The productivity burden of diabetes at a population level. Diabetes Care 41(5):979–984. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-2138
Harley AE, Sapp AL, Li Y, Marino M, Quintiliani LM, Sorensen G (2013) Sociodemographic and social contextual predictors of multiple health behavior change: data from the Healthy Directions-Small Business study. Transl Behav Med 3(1):131–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0196-1
Burton J (2010) Healthy workplace framework and model: background and supporting literature and practices. World Heal Organ, 1–131
Brewster S, Bartholomew J, Holt RIG, Price H (2020) Non-attendance at diabetes outpatient appointments: a systematic review. Diabet Med 37(9):1427–1442
Noda M, Hayashino Y, Yamazaki K et al (2020) A cluster-randomized trial of the effectiveness of a triple-faceted intervention promoting adherence to primary care physician visits by diabetes patients. Sci Rep 10(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59588-x
Izumi K, Hayashino Y, Yamazaki K et al (2010) Multifaceted intervention to promote the regular visiting of patients with diabetes to primary care physicians: Rationale, design and conduct of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. The Japan Diabetes Outcome Intervention Trial-2 study protocol. Diabetol Int 1(2):83–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13340-010-0015-6
Weykamp C, John WG, Mosca A et al (2008) The IFCC reference measurement system for HbA1c: A 6-year progress report. Clin Chem 54(2):240–248
Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley
Nuti LA, Lawley M, Turkcan A et al (2012) No-shows to primary care appointments: subsequent acute care utilization among diabetic patients. BMC Health Serv Res 12:304. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-304
McComb S, Tian Z, Sands L et al (2017) Cancelled primary care appointments: a prospective cohort study of diabetic patients. J Med Syst 41(4):53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0700-0
Archibald LK, Gill GV (1992) Diabetic clinic defaulters — who are they and why do they default? Pract Diabetes Int 9(1):13–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pdi.1960090104
García Díaz E, Ramírez Medina D, García López A, Morera Porras ÓM (2017) Determinants of adherence to hypoglycemic agents and medical visits in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Diabetes y Nutr 64(10):531–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endinu.2017.08.004
Hammersley MS, Holland MR, Walford S, Thorn PA (1985) What happens to defaulters from a diabetic clinic? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 291(6505):1330–1332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.291.6505.1330
Currie CJ, Peyrot M, Morgan CL et al (2013) The impact of treatment non-compliance on mortality in people with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 27(3):219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2012.10.006
Campbell-Richards D (2016) Exploring diabetes non-attendance: An Inner London perspective. J Diabetes Nurs 20(2):73–78
Heydarabadi AB, Mehr HM, Nouhjah S (2017) Why rural diabetic patients do not attend for scheduled appointments: results of a qualitative study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev 11:S989–S995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2017.07.027
Fleischmann M, Carr E, Xue B et al (2018) Changes in autonomy, job demands and working hours after diagnosis of chronic disease: A comparison of employed and self-employed older persons using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). J Epidemiol Community Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-210328
Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2008) The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med 358(21):2249–2258. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154
Pruckner GJ, Schober T, Zocher K (2020) The company you keep: health behavior among work peers. Eur J Heal Econ 21(2):251–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01124-4
Noguchi R, Shen J (2019) Factors affecting participation in health checkups: Evidence from Japanese survey data. Health Policy 123(4):360–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.10.013
Kim S, Song JH, Oh YM, Park SM (2018) Disparities in the utilisation of preventive health services by the employment status: An analysis of 2007–2012 South Korean national survey. PLoS ONE 13(12):e0207737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207737
Parker MM, Moffet HH, Schillinger D et al (2012) Ethnic differences in appointment-keeping and implications for the patient-centered medical home-findings from the diabetes study of Northern California (DISTANCE). Health Serv Res 47(2):572–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01337.x
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Shin-u Hayashi for his valuable comments on preparing the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (Practical Research Project for Life-Style related Diseases including CVD and Diabetes), the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Strategic Outcomes Research Program for Research on Diabetes; Comprehensive Research on Life-Style Related Diseases, including CVD and Diabetes H25-016), and a grant from the Japan Diabetes Foundation. The funding agencies played no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Izumi Nakayama and Atsushi Goto conceived the study design, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. Mitsuhiko Noda contributed to funding acquisition. Yasuaki Hayashino, Hikari Suzuki, Katsuya Yamazaki, Kazuo Izumi, and Mitsuhiko Noda contributed to data acquisition, interpretation of data, and critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Yasuaki Hayashino received grants from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, consulting fees from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., honoraria from Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi KK., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd., AstraZeneca K.K., Kowa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd., Bayer Pharma, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., and participated on advisory board of Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethics approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Yokohama City University institutional review board.
Consent to participate and/or Consent to publish
The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the nature of the study.
Data and/or Code availability
The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.
Additional information
This article belongs to the topical collection Health Education and Psycho-Social Aspects, managed by Massimo Porta and Marina Trento.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nakayama, I., Goto, A., Hayashino, Y. et al. Employment status and diabetic outpatient appointment non-attendance in middle to senior working generation with type 2 diabetes: the Japan diabetes outcome intervention trial-2 large‑scale trial 005 (J-DOIT2-LT005). Acta Diabetol 59, 793–801 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-022-01869-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-022-01869-0