Skip to main content

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