Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Associations of social network characteristics with diabetes status stratified by sex

From: Socially isolated individuals are more prone to have newly diagnosed and prevalent type 2 diabetes mellitus - the Maastricht study –

  Outcome variables stratified by sex
Women Men
Reference category; NGM Pre-diabetes (n = 201) Newly diagnosed T2DM (n = 41) Previously diagnosed T2DM (n = 213) Pre-diabetes (n = 229) Newly diagnosed T2DM (n = 70) Previously diagnosed T2DM (n = 484)
  OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Explanatory variables
Structural characteristics of the social network
Smaller network size (for every fewer network member) 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 1.12** (1.03–1.22) 1.08*** (1.04–1.13) 0.99 (0.95–1.02) 1.10** `(1.03–1.18) 1.05** (1.02–1.09)
Contact frequency
Total contacts per half year (for every 10 additional contacts) 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.98 (0.96–1.01) 0.98* (0.97–1.00) 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.98# (0.96–1.00) 0.99(0.98–1.02)
Percentage of daily-weekly contact (for every additional 10%) 0.99 (0.92–1.05) 1.10 (0.97–1.26) 1.07# (0.99–1.15) 0.99 (0.93–1.05) 1.08# (0.98–1.19) 1.04(0.98–1.09)
Proximity
Percentage of network members living within walking distance (for every fewer 10%) 1.03 (0.95–1.11) 1.21* (1.02–1.42) 1.09* (1.01–1.19) 0.98 (0.91–1.05) 1.02 (0.91–1.13) 1.05# (0.99–1.12)
Type of relationship
Percentage household members (for every additional 10%) 1.06 (0.93–1.20) 1.25** (1.05–1.50) 1.15* (1.03–1.29) 0.96 (0.85–1.08) 1.29*** (1.12–1.49) 0.99 (0.90–1.09)
Percentage family members (for every additional 10%) 1.02 (0.94–1.10) 1.06 (0.92–1.22) 1.08# (0.99–1.17) 0.98 (0.92–1.04) 1.04 (0.94–1.16) 1.03(0.97–1.09)
Percentage friends (for every 10% less) 1.05 (0.96–1.14) 1.14 (0.96–1.35) 1.14** (1.04–1.26) 1.00 (0.93–1.08) 1.08 (0.95–1.22) 1.04(0.98–1.11)
Living alone 1.00 (0.66–1.52) 0.59 (0.24–1.44) 0.87 (0.54–1.39) 1.59# (0.98–2.60) 1.84# (0.89–3.81) 1.94**(1.29–2.93)
Lack of social participation 1.60** (1.12–2.27) 1.72 (0.84–3.55) 2.12*** (1.44–3.13) 1.31 (0.93–1.85) 1.57# (0.92–2.68) 1.42* (1.06–1.90)
Functional characteristics of the social network
Less informational supporta 0.98 (0.88–1.10) 1.13 (0.92–1.40) 1.09 (0.97–1.23) 1.02 (0.92–1.12) 1.12 (0.96–1.31) 1.02 (0.93–1.10)
Less emotional support (discomfort) a 1.04 (0.94–1.16) 1.22# (0.97–1.53) 1.12# (0.99–1.27) 1.08 (0.98–1.21) 1.17# (0.98–1.41) 1.06 (0.96–1.16)
Less emotional support (important decisions) a 1.08 (0.96–1.21) 1.34* (1.06–1.69) 1.11# (0.98–1.26) 1.06 (0.95–1.18) 1.19* (1.00–1.43) 1.11* (1.01–1.22)
Less practical support (jobs)a 1.11# (1.00–1.24) 1.19 (0.94–1.50) 1.16* (1.02–1.32) 1.03 (0.93–1.15) 1.21* (1.01–1.46) 1.04 (0.95–1.14)
Less practical support (sickness) a 1.07 (0.95–1.20) 1.45* (1.07–1.96) 1.21* (1.05–1.41) 1.08 (0.96–1.21) 1.25* (1.02–1.54) 1.13* (1.02–1.25)
  1. All analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, educational level, employment status, alcohol consumption, smoking status, Hypertension, prior CVD and general health (SF36). NGM Normal glucose metabolism; T2DM Type 2 diabetes mellitus. aSocial support variables have a range from 0 to 5. OR; Odds ratio, 95% CI; 95% Confidence interval. #p ≤ 0.1 *p ≤ 0.05 **p ≤ 0.01 ***p ≤ 0.001