HEALTH WATCH - A comprehensive new study analyzing 350 U.S. cities has ranked Los Angeles near the bottom for diabetes management resources and outcomes. The research, conducted by AllClinicalTrials.com, examined cities based on healthcare access, physical activity resources, and health outcomes.
Los Angeles scored just 30.34 out of 100, revealing significant challenges in supporting residents with diabetes:
Healthcare Access:
• Only 4.52 endocrinologists per 100,000 residents (ranked 335th)
• 2.26 hospitals per 100,000 residents (ranked 315th)
• 6.67 pharmacies per 100,000 residents (ranked 348th)
Physical Activity Resources:
• 5.67 gyms per 100,000 residents (ranked 348th)
• 4.95 parks per 100,000 residents (ranked 347th)
• 3.41 walking trails per 100,000 residents (ranked 344th)
Health Outcomes:
• 9% diabetes prevalence (ranked 200th)
• 25% obesity rate (ranked 94th)
• 19% physical inactivity rate (ranked 106th)
• 25 deaths per 100,000 residents (ranked 176th)
"Los Angeles faces significant challenges in providing adequate resources for diabetes management," says Nazar Hembara from AllClinicalTrials.com. "While the city's health outcomes are moderate, the severe lack of per capita healthcare access and physical activity resources creates barriers for residents managing diabetes."
The research evaluated cities using a weighted scoring system:
• Health Risk Factors and Outcomes (50% of total score)
• Healthcare Access (30%)
• Lifestyle and Environmental Supports (20%)
For comparison, the study's highest-ranked cities demonstrate significantly better resources and outcomes:
1. Highlands Ranch, Colorado (Score: 65.97)
- 123.34 endocrinologists per 100,000 residents
- 10.2% physical inactivity rate (lowest nationally)
- 5.3% diabetes prevalence (second-lowest)
2. Boulder, Colorado (Score: 63.29)
- 17.2% obesity rate (third-lowest)
- Extensive parks and trails network
- Strong healthcare infrastructure
For more details on the study and complete city rankings, visit AllClinicalTrials.com.
(The views and opinions expressed here in CityWatch are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CityWatch.)
