| Literature DB >> 29500203 |
Catherine M Pirkle1, Yan Yan Wu1, Maria-Victoria Zunzunegui2, José Fernando Gómez3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conceptual models underpinning much epidemiological research on ageing acknowledge that environmental, social and biological systems interact to influence health outcomes. Recursive partitioning is a data-driven approach that allows for concurrent exploration of distinct mixtures, or clusters, of individuals that have a particular outcome. Our aim is to use recursive partitioning to examine risk clusters for metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components, in order to identify vulnerable populations. STUDYEntities:
Keywords: global health; metabolic syndrome; older adults; recursive partitioning
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29500203 PMCID: PMC5855443 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Descriptive characteristics of the participants and frequency of MetS
| Overall (n=1628) | MetS | P value* | ||
| Yes (42.7%) | No (57.3%) | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Site | ||||
| Kingston | 289 (17.8%) | 92 (31.8%) | 197 (68.2%) | <0.0001 |
| St. Hyacinthe | 310 (19.0%) | 96 (31.0%) | 214 (69.0%) | |
| Tirana | 344 (21.1%) | 171 (49.7%) | 173 (50.3%) | |
| Manizales | 374 (23.0%) | 172 (46.0%) | 202 (54.0%) | |
| Natal | 311 (19.1%) | 164 (52.7%) | 147 (47.3%) | |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 844 (51.8%) | 424 (50.2%) | 420 (49.8%) | <0.0001 |
| Male | 784 (48.2%) | 271 (34.6%) | 513 (65.4%) | |
| Educational attainment | ||||
| Primary/illiterate | 760 (46.7%) | 366 (48.2%) | 394 (51.8%) | 0.0001 |
| Secondary | 217 (13.3%) | 91 (41.9%) | 126 (58.1%) | |
| Postsecondary | 651 (40.0%) | 238 (36.6%) | 413 (63.4%) | |
| Current living arrangements | ||||
| Alone | 254 (15.6%) | 100 (39.4%) | 154 (60.6%) | 0.0001 |
| Spouse only | 609 (37.4%) | 225 (36.9%) | 384 (63.1%) | |
| Other | 765 (47.0%) | 370 (48.4%) | 395 (51.6%) | |
| Adult occupation | ||||
| Non-manual | 593 (36.4%) | 211 (35.6%) | 382 (64.4%) | <0.0001 |
| Service | 160 (9.8%) | 67 (41.9%) | 93 (58.1%) | |
| Agriculture | 94 (5.8%) | 41 (43.6%) | 53 (56.4%) | |
| Manual | 607 (37.3%) | 274 (45.1%) | 333 (54.9%) | |
| Housewife | 174 (10.7%) | 102 (58.6%) | 72 (41.4%) | |
| Current income | ||||
| Poor | 417 (25.6%) | 189 (45.3%) | 228 (54.7%) | 0.001 |
| Middle | 704 (43.2%) | 315 (44.7%) | 389 (55.3%) | |
| Upper middle | 346 (21.3%) | 145 (41.9%) | 201 (58.1%) | |
| High | 161 (9.9%) | 46 (28.6%) | 115 (71.4%) | |
| Perceived income sufficiency | ||||
| Very sufficient | 339 (20.8%) | 102 (30.1%) | 237 (69.9%) | <0.0001 |
| Sufficient | 537 (33.0%) | 215 (40.0%) | 322 (60.0%) | |
| Not (at all) sufficient | 752 (46.2%) | 378 (50.3%) | 374 (49.7%) | |
| Childhood economic adversity | ||||
| No adversities | 858 (52.7%) | 351 (40.9%) | 507 (59.1%) | 0.0291 |
| One adversity event | 453 (27.8%) | 186 (41.1%) | 267 (58.9%) | |
| Two adversity events | 212 (13.0%) | 102 (48.1%) | 110 (51.9%) | |
| Three adversity events | 105 (6.4%) | 56 (53.3%) | 49 (46.7%) | |
| Childhood social adversity | ||||
| No adversities | 1231 (75.6%) | 505 (41.0%) | 726 (59.0%) | 0.0792 |
| One adversity event | 245 (15.0%) | 113 (46.1%) | 132 (53.9%) | |
| Two adversity events | 119 (7.3%) | 59 (49.6%) | 60 (50.4%) | |
| Three adversity events | 33 (2.0%) | 18 (54.5%) | 15 (45.5%) | |
| Smoker | ||||
| Regular | 138 (8.5%) | 64 (46.4%) | 74 (53.6%) | 0.109 |
| Occasional | 37 (2.3%) | 18 (48.6%) | 19 (51.4%) | |
| Used to be | 676 (41.5%) | 265 (39.2%) | 411 (60.8%) | |
| Never | 777 (47.7%) | 348 (44.8%) | 429 (55.2%) | |
| Current employment status | ||||
| Worked with remuneration | 185 (11.4%) | 66 (35.7%) | 119 (64.3%) | 0.011 |
| Worked without remuneration | 201 (12.3%) | 105 (52.2%) | 96 (47.8%) | |
| Had a job, but did not work | 25 (1.5%) | 9 (36.0%) | 16 (64.0%) | |
| Retired or pensioned | 1119 (68.7%) | 468 (41.8%) | 651 (58.2%) | |
| Did not work | 98 (6.0%) | 47 (48.0%) | 51 (52.0%) | |
| Median(Q1, Q3) | Median(Q1, Q3) | Median(Q1, Q3) | ||
| Age (years) | 69 (67, 72) | 69 (67, 72) | 69 (67, 71) | 0.0451 |
| Physical activity (min/week) | 20 (9, 39) | 15 (6, 32) | 24 (10, 43) | <0.0001 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 138 (126, 152) | 143 (134, 157) | 132 (122, 146) | <0.0001 |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 79 (71, 86) | 81 (74, 88) | 77 (70, 84) | <0.0001 |
| Waist (cm) | 96 (88, 104) | 101 (94, 108) | 92 (85, 100) | <0.0001 |
| HbA1c (%) | 5.8 (5.5, 6.2) | 6.1 (5.8, 6.6) | 5.7 (5.4, 6.0) | <0.0001 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 126 (91, 172) | 165 (125, 211) | 105 (78, 134) | <0.0001 |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 50 (43, 60) | 45 (39, 53) | 55 (47, 63) | <0.0001 |
*P values obtained from χ2 tests of association between MetS (yes/no) and categorical explanatory variables, and t-tests for difference in MetS (yes/no) for continuous variable.
DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HbA1c, glycosylated haemoglobin; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; MetS, metabolic syndrome; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Descriptive characteristics of the participants by study site
| Kingston | St. Hyacinthe | Tirana | Manizales | Natal | |
| 289 (17.8%) | 310 (19%) | 344 (21.1%) | 374 (23%) | 311 (19.1%) | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| MetS | |||||
| Yes | 92 (31.8%) | 96 (31.0%) | 171 (49.7%) | 172 (46.0%) | 164 (52.7%) |
| No | 197 (68.2%) | 214 (69.0%) | 173 (50.3%) | 202 (54.0%) | 147 (47.3%) |
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 152 (52.6%) | 166 (53.5%) | 178 (51.7%) | 190 (50.8%) | 158 (50.8%) |
| Male | 137 (47.4%) | 144 (46.5%) | 166 (48.3%) | 184 (49.2%) | 153 (49.2%) |
| Educational attainment | |||||
| Primary/illiterate | 29 (10.0%) | 85 (27.4%) | 54 (15.7%) | 310 (82.9%) | 282 (90.7%) |
| Secondary | 37 (12.8%) | 67 (21.6%) | 79 (23.0%) | 19 (5.1%) | 15 (4.8%) |
| Postsecondary | 223 (77.2%) | 158 (51.0%) | 211 (61.3%) | 45 (12.0%) | 14 (4.5%) |
| Current living arrangements | |||||
| Alone | 88 (30.4%) | 72 (23.2%) | 31 (9.0%) | 47 (12.6%) | 16 (5.1%) |
| Spouse only | 127 (43.9%) | 201 (64.8%) | 151 (43.9%) | 68 (18.2%) | 62 (19.9%) |
| Other | 74 (25.6%) | 37 (11.9%) | 162 (47.1%) | 259 (69.3%) | 233 (74.9%) |
| Adult occupation | |||||
| Non-manual | 226 (78.2%) | 158 (51.0%) | 116 (33.7%) | 63 (16.8%) | 30 (9.6%) |
| Service | 24 (8.3%) | 40 (12.9%) | 23 (6.7%) | 22 (5.9%) | 51 (16.4%) |
| Agriculture | 2 (0.7%) | 18 (5.8%) | 5 (1.5%) | 37 (9.9%) | 32 (10.3%) |
| Manual | 27 (9.3%) | 78 (25.2%) | 199 (57.8%) | 161 (43.0%) | 142 (45.7%) |
| Housewife | 10 (3.5%) | 16 (5.2%) | 1 (0.3%) | 91 (24.3%) | 56 (18.0%) |
| Current income | |||||
| Poor | 51 (17.6%) | 109 (35.2%) | 36 (10.5%) | 191 (51.1%) | 30 (9.6%) |
| Middle | 97 (33.6%) | 122 (39.4%) | 204 (59.3%) | 112 (29.9%) | 169 (54.3%) |
| Upper middle | 61 (21.1%) | 62 (20.0%) | 82 (23.8%) | 50 (13.4%) | 91 (29.3%) |
| High | 80 (27.7%) | 17 (5.5%) | 22 (6.4%) | 21 (5.6%) | 21 (6.8%) |
| Perceived income sufficiency | |||||
| Very sufficient | 174 (60.2%) | 132 (42.6%) | 5 (1.5%) | 19 (5.1%) | 9 (2.9%) |
| Sufficient | 101 (34.9%) | 157 (50.6%) | 121 (35.2%) | 89 (23.8%) | 69 (22.2%) |
| Not (at all) sufficient | 14 (4.8%) | 21 (6.8%) | 218 (63.4%) | 266 (71.1%) | 233 (74.9%) |
| Childhood economic adversity | |||||
| No adversities | 190 (65.7%) | 201 (64.8%) | 147 (42.7%) | 216 (57.8%) | 104 (33.4%) |
| One adversity event | 73 (25.3%) | 92 (29.7%) | 89 (25.9%) | 108 (28.9%) | 91 (29.3%) |
| Two adversity events | 24 (8.3%) | 15 (4.8%) | 75 (21.8%) | 28 (7.5%) | 70 (22.5%) |
| Three adversity events | 2 (0.7%) | 2 (0.6%) | 33 (9.6%) | 22 (5.9%) | 46 (14.8%) |
| Childhood social adversity | |||||
| No adversities | 210 (72.7%) | 229 (73.9%) | 281 (81.7%) | 287 (76.7%) | 224 (72.0%) |
| One adversity event | 42 (14.5%) | 54 (17.4%) | 27 (7.8%) | 63 (16.8%) | 59 (19.0%) |
| Two adversity events | 25 (8.7%) | 22 (7.1%) | 30 (8.7%) | 18 (4.8%) | 24 (7.7%) |
| Three adversity events | 12 (4.2%) | 5 (1.6%) | 6 (1.7%) | 6 (1.6%) | 4 (1.3%) |
| Smoker | |||||
| Regular | 14 (4.8%) | 19 (6.1%) | 43 (12.5%) | 37 (9.9%) | 25 (8.0%) |
| Occasional | 3 (1.0%) | 5 (1.6%) | 12 (3.5%) | 13 (3.5%) | 4 (1.3%) |
| Used to be | 141 (48.8%) | 169 (54.5%) | 81 (23.5%) | 147 (39.3%) | 138 (44.4%) |
| Never | 131 (45.3%) | 117 (37.7%) | 208 (60.5%) | 177 (47.3%) | 144 (46.3%) |
| Current employment status | |||||
| Worked with remuneration | 43 (14.9%) | 39 (12.6%) | 8 (2.3%) | 58 (15.5%) | 37 (11.9%) |
| Worked without remuneration | 8 (2.8%) | 18 (5.8%) | 8 (2.3%) | 99 (26.5%) | 68 (21.9%) |
| Had a job, but did not work | 8 (2.8%) | 2 (0.6%) | 4 (1.2%) | 8 (2.1%) | 3 (1.0%) |
| Retired or pensioned | 228 (78.9%) | 246 (79.4%) | 323 (93.9%) | 133 (35.6%) | 189 (60.8%) |
| Did not work | 2 (0.7%) | 5 (1.6%) | 1 (0.3%) | 76 (20.3%) | 14 (4.5%) |
| Median(Q1, Q3) | Median (Q1, Q3) | Median(Q1, Q3) | Median(Q1, Q3) | Median(Q1, Q3) | |
| Age (year) | 69(67, 71) | 68(67, 71) | 70(66, 72) | 69(67, 72) | 69 (67, 71) |
| Physical activity (min/week) | 26(9, 51) | 24(9, 39) | 27(11, 48) | 17(9, 39) | 10(4, 23) |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 135 (124, 145) | 134 (125, 143) | 144 (130, 161) | 133 (123, 146) | 146 (130, 161) |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 77(71, 83) | 75 (68, 81) | 84(75, 91) | 79(72, 86) | 78(71, 86) |
| Waist (cm) | 96(88, 107) | 94(87, 102) | 102 (95, 107) | 90(83, 96) | 100 (93, 106) |
| HbA1c (%) | 5.8 (5.5, 6.0) | 5.8 (5.5, 6.1) | 5.6 (5.3, 6.3) | 5.9 (5.7, 6.2) | 6.0 (5.6, 6.5) |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 88(60, 136) | 122 (91, 159) | 130 (106, 165) | 140 (106, 201) | 135 (97, 187) |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 54(45, 66) | 56(46, 67) | 47 (41, 52) | 48(39, 57) | 52 (47, 61) |
DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HbA1c, glycosylated haemoglobin; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; MetS, metabolic syndrome; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Figure 1Model based recursive partitioning for MetS controlling for age. The horizontal axis of the terminal plots is age (64–75 years), and the vertical axis shows the predicted mean proportions of MetS obtained from logistic regression models by age. The predicted mean proportion of MetS and 95% CI for each terminal node are listed under the plots. MetS, metabolic syndrome.