J Mortensen1, A J Clark2, T Lange3, G S Andersen4, M Goldberg5, C H Ramlau-Hansen6, J Head7, M Kivimäki7, I E H Madsen8, C Leineweber9, R Lund10, R Rugulies8, M Zins11, H Westerlund9, N H Rod2. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: jemo@sund.ku.dk. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Center for Statistical Science, Peking University, Peking, China. 4. Clinical Epidemiology, Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark. 5. Paris Descartes University, Paris, France; INSERM, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts Unit-UMS 11, Paris, France. 6. Department of Public Health, Section for Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK. 8. National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark. 9. Division of Epidemiology, Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 10. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Center for Healthy Aging, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 11. INSERM, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts Unit-UMS 11, Paris, France; INSERM, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France.
Abstract
AIM: To examine whether informal caregiving is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), and whether job strain and social support at work modify the association. METHODS: Individual participant's data were pooled from three cohort studies-the French GAZEL study, the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH) and the British Whitehall II study-a total of 21,243 study subjects. Informal caregiving was defined as unpaid care for a closely related person. Job strain was assessed using the demand-control model, and questions on co-worker and supervisor support were combined in a measure of social support at work. Incident T2D was ascertained using registry-based, clinically assessed and self-reported data. RESULTS: A total of 1058 participants developed T2D during the up to 10 years of follow-up. Neither informal caregiving (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.92-1.30) nor high job strain (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.86-1.26) were associated with T2D risk, whereas low social support at work was a risk factor for T2D (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.37). Also, informal caregivers who were also exposed to low social support at work were at higher risk of T2D (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82) compared with those who were not informal caregivers and had high social support at work (multiplicative test for interaction, P=0.04; additive test for interaction, synergy index=10). CONCLUSION: Informal caregiving was not independently associated with T2D risk. However, low social support at work was a risk factor, and informal caregivers with low social support at work had even higher risks of T2D.
AIM: To examine whether informal caregiving is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), and whether job strain and social support at work modify the association. METHODS: Individual participant's data were pooled from three cohort studies-the French GAZEL study, the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH) and the British Whitehall II study-a total of 21,243 study subjects. Informal caregiving was defined as unpaid care for a closely related person. Job strain was assessed using the demand-control model, and questions on co-worker and supervisor support were combined in a measure of social support at work. Incident T2D was ascertained using registry-based, clinically assessed and self-reported data. RESULTS: A total of 1058 participants developed T2D during the up to 10 years of follow-up. Neither informal caregiving (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.92-1.30) nor high job strain (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.86-1.26) were associated with T2D risk, whereas low social support at work was a risk factor for T2D (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.37). Also, informal caregivers who were also exposed to low social support at work were at higher risk of T2D (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82) compared with those who were not informal caregivers and had high social support at work (multiplicative test for interaction, P=0.04; additive test for interaction, synergy index=10). CONCLUSION: Informal caregiving was not independently associated with T2D risk. However, low social support at work was a risk factor, and informal caregivers with low social support at work had even higher risks of T2D.
Authors: Thanh Duc Nguyen; Ib Christian Bygbjerg; Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch; Tine Gammeltoft; Cuong Duc Le; Ai Thi Nguyen; Jens Søndergaard Journal: Public Health Pract (Oxf) Date: 2021-10-29
Authors: Tuija M Mikkola; Hannu Kautiainen; Minna Mänty; Mikaela B von Bonsdorff; Teppo Kröger; Johan G Eriksson Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-10-11 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Ana Paula B Pena-Gralle; Denis Talbot; Caroline S Duchaine; Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud; Xavier Trudel; Karine Aubé; Matthias Gralle; Mahée Gilbert-Ouimet; Alain Milot; Chantal Brisson Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.024