| Literature DB >> 32958796 |
Shuko Takahashi1,2,3, Kozo Tanno4, Yuki Yonekura5, Haruki Shimoda4, Ryohei Sasaki4, Kiyomi Sakata4, Akira Ogawa6, Seiichiro Kobayashi6.
Abstract
The association between incidence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and living conditions has not been studied after natural disasters. We compared the incidence of DM between individuals living in temporary housing (TH) and those living in other types of accommodation (non-TH) five years after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Longitudinal follow-up was conducted from 2011 to 2015 in a cohort of 7,491 residents of coastal communities in Iwate Prefecture directly impacted by the 2011 disaster (mean age, 61.6 years; men, 36.0%). We calculated the odds ratio of new onset of DM in the TH group (n = 2,372) compared with the non-TH group (n = 5,119) using discrete-time logit models stratified by sex and age classes (64 years or younger and older than 65 years). The TH group showed a significantly higher odds ratio (OR) for DM in men aged 64 years or younger (OR [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.71 [1.03-2.85]; P-value = 0.040). In women, living conditions were not significantly associated DM. Survivors relocated to TH appeared to be at an increased risk of new onset DM.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32958796 PMCID: PMC7505964 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71759-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Baseline characteristics of participants in the 2011 survey (n = 7,491).
| Men (n = 2,697) | Women (n = 4,794) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missing | TH group (n = 853) | Non-TH group (n = 1844) | Missing | TH group (n = 1519) | Non-TH group (n = 3,275) | ||||
| n (%) | Mean (SD)/n (%) | Mean (SD)/n (%) | n (%) | Mean (SD)/n (%) | Mean (SD)/n (%) | ||||
| Age (year) | 0 (0.0) | 61.9 (13.5) | 63.6 (13.6) | 0.002 | 0 (0.0) | 60.3 (14.4) | 60.9 (13.5) | 0.162 | |
| 18–44 | 0 (0.0) | 119 (14.0) | 221 (12.0) | < 0.001 | 0 (0.0) | 269 (17.7) | 461 (14.1) | 0.001 | |
| 45–54 | 0 (0.0) | 117 (13.7) | 163 (8.8) | 0 (0.0) | 191 (12.6) | 395 (12.1) | |||
| 55–64 | 0 (0.0) | 189 (22.2) | 436 (23.6) | 0 (0.0) | 375 (24.7) | 975 (29.8) | |||
| 65–75 | 0 (0.0) | 290 (34.0) | 651 (35.3) | 0 (0.0) | 462 (30.4) | 992 (30.3) | |||
| ≧ 75 | 0 (0.0) | 138 (16.2) | 373 (20.2) | 0 (0.0) | 222 (14.6) | 452 (13.8) | |||
| Death of family members | 685 (25.4) | 100 (15.7) | 94 (6.8) | < 0.001 | 1,079 (40.0) | 179 (15.2) | 154 (6.1) | < 0.001 | |
| No death of family members | |||||||||
| Single (2015) | 691 (25.6) | 187 (29.4) | 253 (18.5) | < 0.001 | 1,079 (40.0) | 440 (37.3) | 753 (29.7) | < 0.001 | |
| Married | |||||||||
| Current smokers | 0 (0.0) | 284 (33.3) | 498 (27.0) | 0.001 | 0 (0.0) | 117 (7.7) | 192 (5.9) | 0.016 | |
| Non-current smokers | |||||||||
| Drinkers | 0 (0.0) | 562 (65.9) | 1,175 (63.7) | 0.275 | 0 (0.0) | 239 (15.7) | 441 (13.5) | 0.036 | |
| Non-drinkers | |||||||||
| Low physical activity | 14 (0.5) | 552 (64.9) | 1,070 (58.4) | 0.001 | 38 (1.4) | 1,083 (71.6) | 2,150 (66.3) | < 0.001 | |
| Normal physical activity | |||||||||
| Small number of meals (< 3 times) | 19 (0.7) | 80 (9.5) | 101 (5.5) | < 0.001 | 25 (0.9) | 92 (6.1) | 148 (4.5) | 0.022 | |
| Normal number of meals (≥ 3 times) | |||||||||
| Poor dietary intake | 0 (0.0) | 402 (47.1) | 729 (39.5) | < 0.001 | 0 (0.0) | 518 (34.1) | 995 (30.4) | 0.010 | |
| Good dietary intake | |||||||||
| Severe economic status | 9 (0.3) | 543 (64.2) | 878 (47.7) | < 0.001 | 11 (0.4) | 902 (59.5) | 1518 (46.5) | < 0.001 | |
| General economic status | |||||||||
| Unemployment (2015) | 710 (26.3) | 322 (51.4) | 701 (51.5) | 0.977 | 1,105 (41.0) | 760 (64.8) | 1665 (66.2) | 0.437 | |
| Employment | |||||||||
| Psychological distress | 27 (1.0) | 346 (41.0) | 623 (34.1) | 0.001 | 101 (3.7) | 779 (52.6) | 1,420 (44.2) | < 0.001 | |
| No psychological distress | |||||||||
| Insomnia | 29 (1.1) | 270 (32.0) | 412 (22.6) | < 0.001 | 78 (2.9) | 672 (44.9) | 1,142 (35.5) | < 0.001 | |
| No insomnia | |||||||||
| Low level of social network | 56 (2.1) | 344 (41.1) | 767 (42.5) | 0.47 | 102 (3.8) | 602 (40.8) | 1,288 (40.0) | 0.597 | |
| High level of social network | |||||||||
| Low level of social capital | 6 (0.2) | 92 (10.8) | 193 (10.5) | 0.801 | 16 (0.6) | 135 (8.9) | 259 (7.9) | 0.255 | |
| High level of social capital | |||||||||
| Obesity | 0 (0.0) | 303 (35.5) | 678 (36.8) | 0.532 | 10 (0.4) | 429 (28.3) | 918 (28.1) | 0.882 | |
| No obesity | |||||||||
| Hypertension | 0 (0.0) | 414 (48.5) | 941 (51.0) | 0.228 | 0 (0.0) | 638 (42.0) | 1,339 (40.9) | 0.465 | |
| No hypertension | |||||||||
| Dyslipidemia | 0 (0.0) | 307 (36.0) | 598 (32.4) | 0.069 | 0 (0.0) | 710 (46.7) | 1517 (46.3) | 0.786 | |
| No dyslipidemia | |||||||||
Continuous variables indicate mean (standard deviation), categorical variables indicate the number of case (%).
P-values were calculated using the Student t tests for continuous variables and the Chi square test for categorical variables.
Non-TH non-temporary housing group, TH temporary housing group, SD standard deviation.
Odds ratios of the incidence of diabetes mellitus in discrete-time logit models.
| Men | Women | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Panel samples | 8,171 | 6,866 | 15,186 | 13,151 |
| Number | 2,461 | 1979 | 4,553 | 3,680 |
| Event case | 221 | 180 | 237 | 193 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, TH temporary housing group.
Odds ratios of the incidence of diabetes mellitus for men in discrete-time logit models stratified by age class.
| Men | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age class | 64 years or younger | 65 years or older | ||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Panel samples | 3,643 | 3,035 | 4,528 | 3,831 |
| Number | 1,237 | 888 | 1,445 | 1,091 |
| Event case | 83 | 70 | 138 | 110 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, TH temporary housing group.
Odds ratios of the incidence of diabetes mellitus for women in discrete-time logit models stratified by age class.
| Women | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age class | 64 years or younger | 65 years or older | ||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Panel samples | 8,377 | 7,252 | 6,809 | 5,899 |
| Number | 2,665 | 2041 | 2,125 | 1639 |
| Event case | 102 | 88 | 135 | 105 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, TH temporary housing group.
Figure 1Map of the area surveyed in the present study. The figure shows a map of Japan. The epicenter of the earthquake is marked as a bulls-eye. The municipalities included in our study were Yamada town, Otsuchi town and Rikuzentakata city.
Figure 2Flow chart used to select participants for the study. The original cohort consisted of 10,081 participants in the baseline survey. After exclusion criteria was met, a total of 7,491 participants remained for the analysis.