The aim of the research: The aim of this research is to compare the frequency of going to the physician by patients with diabetes treated in family physician's offices in rural and urban area. Furthermore, the research is aimed to determine if there is any correlation between the number of patients' visits and the control of the chronic illness being examined, and to ascertain if there is any risk of going to the rural physician's offices in order to control the chronic illness. Participants (patients) and methods: The data were collected from the medical records from the two family physician's offices, one from the urban and one from the rural area. 140 patients in total, who were diagnosed with having diabetes for the first time in the period from 2008 to 2017, participated in the research. Every patient was monitored for the equal period of time (365 days), from the day that the diabetes was diagnosed. In case there was a lack of medical record, a severe acute and chronic illnesses or diagnosed primary illness in the time before and after the monitored period, the patients were not included in the research. The main outcome measures were the visits to the family physician offices for the examined (primary) illness, either because the primary illness got worse or due to the control of the primary illness, and the control that was achieved at the end of the one year period. The secondary outcome measures were the number of prescriptions issued in order to treat the primary illness, type and number of medicines for treating the examined illness, complications of the examined illness and the exact number of attending the physician’s office during the period of examination. Statistical analysis was done with the statistical program “STATISTICA 12“, and conclusions are drawn with significance of 5%. Results At the end of the one-year period in great number of monitored patients from both urban and rural area the normal blood glucose level was not achieved (p=0,726). No statistica l ly significant difference was noted in the blood glucose level at the end of the one-year period (p=0,395). In both monitored groups the illness was most frequently diagnosed by the family physician. In the greatest number of monitored urban area patients the treatment initiated with hygiene and dietary measures, whereas in the greatest number of monitored rural area patients the treatment started immediately with medicines. The testing showed the connection between the residence and the treatment method that was employed at the beginning of the treatment (χ2 =62,78; p<0,001). In both monitored groups the mostly used medicine for prediabetes treatment is metformin (the group of biguanides) that is prescribed to the same extent in both monitored groups (p=0210). The rural area patients went to the family physician’s office more often to control the diabetes (p=0,040), while the total number of all visits is greater in the urban area (p=,001). Conclusion To conclude, the urban and rural areas do not differentiate according to the range of achievement of the target blood glucose levels after one-year treatment. In great number of both groups of patients target blood glucose levels were not achieved. The medicines were prescribed in accordance with valid guidelines for diabetes treatment, and the first medicine that was prescribed at the beginning of the treatment in patients from rural and urban area was metformin. The patients from rural area went to the family physician’s office more often in order to control their diabetes, while the total number of all patients’ visits is bigger in the urban area.