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

Brinkhues, Stephanie; Dukers-Muijrers, Nicole H. T. M.; Hoebe, Christian J. P. A.; van der Kallen, Carla J. H.; Dagnelie, Pieter C.; Koster, Annemarie; Henry, Ronald M. A.; Sep, Simone J. S.; Schaper, Nicolaas C.; Stehouwer, Coen D. A.; Bosma, Hans; Savelkoul, Paul H. M.; Schram, Miranda T.

doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4948-6

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 support^a	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)

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

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpublichealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Public Health

Contact us