Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics and spousal association effect estimates

From: Spousal diabetes as a diabetes risk factor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author, Year

Study design, time frame

City, Country

Age limits; mean age (years; SD)

Source population; number

Couples, number

Method of identifying diabetes

Diabetes prevalencea; number (%)

Marriage duration, years

Effect estimates (Odds ratio (95% CI) unless otherwise stated)

Other variables used to adjust effect estimates

Husbands

Wives

Not adjusted for BMI

Adjusted for BMI

Stimpson, 2005

Cross- sectional; 1993-1994

Southwest USA

≥65;73.9 (6.3) for men; 70.9 (5.2) for women

Hispanic established populations for the epidemiologic studies of the elderly; 3,050

503

Self-report

25 (4.5)

24 (4.3)

Unclear

1.64 (1.07-2.54) women as outcome; 1.77 (1.14-2.74) men as outcome

1.53 (0.98-2.39) women as outcome; 1.78 (1.14-2.79) men as outcome

Men’s age, education, nativity, blood pressure, smoking status and alcohol intake

Jurj, 2006

Cross-sectional; 1997-2000

Shanghai, China

40-70; 54.6 (9.7) for men;51.9 (8.8) for women

Shanghai Women’s health Study between; 74,943 women

66,130

Self-report

2,689 (4.5); age-adjusted

2,469 (3.4); age-adjusted

Median 23.1

1.1 (1.0-1.3) women as outcome

1.1 (1.0-1.3) women as outcomec

Women’s age, education, occupation and family income

Hippisley-Cox, 2002

Cross-sectionalb

Trent, UK

30-70

Trent Focus Collaborative Research Practice Network; 29,014

8,386

Electronic medical records; code for diabetes or current prescription of anti-hyperglycemic agents

300 (3.6)

156 (1.9)

Unclear

1.70 (1.06, 2.74) women as outcome

1.41 (0.87, 2.26) women as outcome

Women and men’s age, smoking status, GP practice clustering

Hemminki, 2010

Longitudinal cohort; 1972–2007; Mean follow-up 14.8 years

Sweden

>39

Multigeneration and hospital discharge registers, 157,549

3,490,178 person-years

Hospital discharge summariesdiagnoses

3,286

3,178

Unclear

SIR 1.31 (1.26-1.35) men as outcome; 1.33 (1.29-1.38) women as outcome

N/A

Standardized to expected number of cases for age, sex, period, region and SES

Khan, 2003

Cross-sectionalb

London, UK

N/A; 57.4 (8.2) spouses of controls; 57.1 (7.2) spouses of participants with diabetes

Inner London GP diabetes clinic; 479 patients with diabetes for ≥5 years

245 spouses of participants with diabetes; 234 spouses of controls

WHO criteria for diabetes diagnosis

19 (7.8) spouses of diabetes patients; 7 (3.0) spouses of controls had diabetes.

Unclear

N/A

2.11 (1.74-5.1)

None

      

Method of identifying pre-diabetes/diabetes

Pre-diabetes/diabetes prevalence a ; number (%)

   

Khan, 2003

See above

See above

See above

See above

See above

WHO criteria for diabetes, IGT and IFG diagnosis

28 (11.4) spouses of diabetes patients; 15 (6.4) spouses of controls

Unclear

N/A

2.32 (1.87, 3.98)

None

Kim, 2006

Cross-sectional; 1998-2001

Korea

≥10; 47.9 (12.8)

Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys; 19,541

3,141

FPG ≥6 mmol/L oranti-hyperglycemic medication

530 (16.9)

Unclear

N/A

1.92 (1.55, 2.37) women as outcome*; 1.94 (1.57, 2.40) men as outcome*

N/A

  1. aStudies that examined only diabetes are reported in the upper half of the table; studies that examined both pre-diabetes and diabetes are reported in the lower half of the tableb year of data collection was not explicitly stated in published study. cAuthors reported that adjustment for BMI did not change estimates by more than 10%. | two readings of FPG ≥7 or random glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L was the criteria used to diagnose diabetes; FPG 6.0 to 6.9 mmol to diagnose IFG; OGTT 7.8 to 11.0 to diagnose IGT. FPG, fasting plasma glucose; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; GP, general practitioner; OGTT: oral glucose tolerance test; SES: socioeconomic status; SIR: standardized incidence ratio.
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us