Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of practices
| Characteristic | All patients | Insulin-naive patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| Practices (n= 282) | Patients (n= 7757) | Practices (n= 262) | Patients (n= 1159) | |
| Type of practice, n (%) | ||||
| Single-handed practice | 67 (23.8) | 1534 (19.8) | 61 (23.3) | 209 (18.0) |
| Duo practices | 95 (33.7) | 1939 (25.0) | 86 (32.8) | 278 (24.0) |
| Group practices | 101 (35.8) | 3852 (49.7) | 97 (37.0) | 598 (51.6) |
| Unknown | 19 (6.7) | 432 (5.6) | 18 (6.9) | 74 (6.4) |
|
| ||||
| Dispensing practice,a n (%) | 8 (2.8) | 185 (2.4) | 7 (2.7) | 24 (2.1) |
|
| ||||
| Practice size, mean number of patients (SD) | — | 3902.5 (2402.0) | — | 3964.7 (2419.7) |
|
| ||||
| Practice size groups,b n (%) | ||||
| Small | 94 (33.3) | 1592 (20.5) | 78 (29.8) | 206 (17.8) |
| Medium | 94 (33.3) | 1948 (25.1) | 90 (34.4) | 307 (26.5) |
| Large | 94 (33.3) | 4217 (54.4) | 94 (35.9) | 646 (55.7) |
|
| ||||
| Degree of urbanisation (location of practice), n (%) | ||||
| Very strong | 71 (25.2) | 2184 (28.2) | 69 (26.3) | 389 (33.6) |
| Strong | 69 (24.5) | 1864 (24.0) | 62 (23.7) | 267 (23.0) |
| Moderate | 64 (22.7) | 1799 (23.2) | 60 (22.9) | 244 (21.1) |
| Little | 44 (15.6) | 1143 (14.7) | 41 (15.6) | 172 (14.8) |
| Not | 34 (12.1) | 767 (9.9) | 30 (11.5) | 87 (7.5) |
|
| ||||
| SES (location of practice), n (%) | ||||
| Low | 94 (33.3) | 2944 (38.0) | 92 (35.1) | 420 (36.2) |
| Moderate | 94 (33.3) | 2618 (33.8) | 85 (32.4) | 387 (33.4) |
| High | 94 (33.3) | 2195 (28.3) | 85 (32.4) | 352 (30.4) |
|
| ||||
| % aged ≥70 yearsc | ||||
| Low | 94 (33.3) | 2382 (30.7) | 87 (33.2) | 376 (32.4) |
| Moderate | 94 (33.3) | 2483 (32.0) | 85 (32.4) | 387 (33.4) |
| High | 94 (33.3) | 2892 (37.3) | 90 (34.4) | 396 (34.2) |
a
Status was unknown for 12 practices.
b
Small 1337–2599 patients; medium 2601–3782 patients; large 3828–16 923 patients.
c
Low: <12.6%; medium 12.7–16.2%; high >16.2%. SD = standard deviation. SES = socioeconomic status.