|Study characteristics and spousal association effect estimates|
|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 prevalencea; 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|
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.
Leong et al.
Leong et al. BMC Medicine 2014 12:12 doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-12