ArticlePeerJ2020
Clustering of multiple health risk behaviors and its association with diabetes in a Southern Chinese adult population: a cross-sectional study.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uncovering heterogeneous cardiometabolic risk profiles in US adults: the role of social and behavioral determinants of health.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2023Article
- Correlation between serum lipid profiles and cognitive impairment in old age: a cross-sectional study.General psychiatry · 2023Article
- Assessment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients' behavioral characteristics associated with integrated treatment and prevention services in community health centers in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Urban-rural disparities in mild cognitive impairment and its functional subtypes among community-dwelling older residents in central China.General psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying the clustering patterns of health risk behaviors (HRBs) within individuals and their health impacts are essential to develop lifestyle promotion strategies. This study aimed to explore the clustering of a range of HRBs and the associations between such identified clusters and diabetes in Southern Chinese adults.
methodsData from 5,734 adults aged 35-75 years and underwent health examinations from November 2012 to December 2013 at a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou were analyzed. Behavioral characteristics, including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and sleep duration and quality, were measured by questionnaires. Latent class analysis was conducted by gender to identify HRBs clustering patterns, and logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations between behavioral patterns and diabetes.
resultsThree distinct behavioral clusters emerged in both genders. Male classes were defined as: (1) healthy lifestyle (Class 1, 62.9%); (2) cumulate harmful habits (Class 2, 27.1%); (3) poor sleep and risky habits (Class 3, 10.0%). Female classes were: (1) healthy lifestyle (Class 1, 83.0%); (2) inactive, daytime dysfunction (Class 2, 5.7%); (3) poor sleep habits (Class 3, 11.3%). Individuals of Class 2 and Class 3 showed a higher likelihood of diabetes across genders (multivariable-adjusted ORs [95% CIs], 2.03 [1.49-2.76] and 2.61 [1.78-3.81] among males, 2.64 [1.16-5.98] and 1.81 [1.07-3.06] among females) when compared with those of Class 1.
conclusionsOur data provided additional evidence of HRBs clustering among adults, and such clustering was associated with an increased risk of diabetes. These findings have implications for identifying vulnerable subgroups and developing diabetes prevention programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.