Table 1

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

Open Data