| Title |
Epidemiology of NAFLD and Type 2 Diabetes: Health Disparities Among Persons of Hispanic Origin
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-015-0674-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariana Lazo, Usama Bilal, Rafael Perez-Escamilla |
| Abstract |
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver condition in the USA and worldwide and affects Hispanics disproportionally. In this review, we aim to document and contrast the epidemiology of NAFLD and type 2 diabetes, provide a framework to study health disparities in NAFLD in Hispanic populations, and identify points of action within the health care system to tackle these health disparities. NAFLD shares many common risk factors with type 2 diabetes, specially obesity and insulin resistance, but shows different prevalence patterns by ethnicity: while Hispanics are disproportionately affected by both NAFLD and type 2 diabetes, non-Hispanic black populations have a low prevalence of NAFLD. The current literature suggests a strong role of polymorphisms in the PNPLA3 gene and potential interactions with environmental factors in the pathogenesis of NAFLD. However, given potential interactions and the shared risk factors with type 2 diabetes, a health disparity approach that acknowledges upstream determinants is needed. Solutions to these determinants can also be found in the health system. The role of interventions that have shown efficacy in type 2 diabetes, like community health workers, may be implemented to prevent and control NAFLD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 30% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#771
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,907
of 279,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#27
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.