The relationship between socioeconomic status/income and prevalence of diabetes and associated conditions: A cross-sectional population-based study in Saskatchewan, Canada

Abstract

IntroductionThe role that socioeconomic status/income play in accounting for the increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes has not been sufficiently studied in Canada. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine the unadjusted and adjusted effect of income on type 2 diabetes. The secondary purpose was to determine the adjusted effect of income on diabetes associated conditions such as high blood pressure and being overweight or obese, and its main behavioral factor of physical inactivity.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional, population-based study. Data was analyzed from four cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). It was conducted by Statistics Canada and covered the time period of 2000–2008 in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. In this study, four separate and distinct multivariate models were built to determine the independent effect of income on type 2 diabetes and the associated conditions of high blood pressure, being overweight or obese, and physical inactivity.ResultsThe total sample size was comprised of 27,090 residents from Saskatchewan. After statistically controlling for age, only six covariates were independently associated with type 2 diabetes prevalence including: having high blood pressure (OR = 3.26), visible minority cultural status (OR = 2.17), being overweight or obese (OR = 1.97), being of male gender (OR = 1.76), having a household income of $29,999 per year (OR = 1.63) and being physically inactive (OR = 1.15).ConclusionsIn this study, household income was strongly and independently associated with type 2 diabetes prevalence, its associated conditions of high blood pressure and being overweight or obese, and its main behavioral factor of physical inactivity. We suggest that income is an important but frequently overlooked factor for type 2 diabetes and worthy of further investigation, appropriate public debate and timely policy intervention.

Linking socioeconomic inequalities and type 2 diabetes through obesity and lifestyle factors among Mexican adults: a structural equations modeling approach

“…32,33 We also found that subjects with higher SII score had lower levels of physical activity (ß = -0.066, p<0.05). In agreement with our findings, Bird and colleagues 27 found that participants with lower income had higher levels of physical inactivity. This finding could relate to fewer and less safe environments, and/or lack of infrastructure (sidewalks and parks) that would decrease the practice of leisure physical activities.…”

“…The relation between DM2 and socioeconomic inequalities observed in the present study has been reported in other populations previously. [24][25][26][27] For example, in a representative sample of the European population, Espelt and colleagues 24 found that women with a lower socioeconomic position (characterized by low education, low income, and low socioeconomic status) had 2.2 (95%CI: 1.9-2.7) higher prevalence ratio of DM2, while for men it was 1.6 (95%CI: 1.4-1.9). In this sense, multiple possible mechanisms have been described in the relation between socioeconomic inequalities and health.…”

Relation Between the Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus and Human Development Index: A Global Ecological Study

“…A study to determine the effect of income on type 2 diabetes showed that after controlling for age, having a household income of $29,999 per year was associated with the type 2 diabetes prevalence (28). In addition, DM was regarded as a health problem in middle-aged living in low or medium developed countries, and elderlies living in high developed countries.…”

The relationship between socio‐economic status and diagnosed Type 2 diabetes is changing with economic growth in Nanjing, China

“…Socio‐economic status (SES) is associated with the presence of Type 2 diabetes internationally . A thorough understanding of the relationship between SES and Type 2 diabetes is necessary to inform the development of population‐level preventive strategies, so that public health interventions can be tailored appropriately for different SES groups.…”

“…SES is a complex construct, with no ‘gold standard’ measurement . As a consequence, several different indicators have been developed to measure SES, including participants’ income, education or occupation . Different SES indicators can present different information on participants’ socio‐economic positions within their societies .…”