ArticleBMC public health2024
Intersectional analysis of social disparities in type 2 diabetes risk among adults in Germany: results from a nationwide population-based survey.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social determinants of intersectional inequalities in multimorbidity and its burden in China: a multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA).International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferences in type 2 diabetes risk have been reported for several sociodemographic determinants including sex/gender or socioeconomic status. From an intersectional perspective, it is important to not only consider the role of social dimensions individually, but also their intersections. This allows for a deeper understanding of diabetes risk and preventive needs among diverse population groups.
methodsAs an intersectionality-informed approach, multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) was used in a population-based sample of adults without known diabetes in Germany from the cross-sectional survey "Disease knowledge and information needs- Diabetes mellitus (2017)". Diabetes risk was assessed by the German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS, range 0-122 points), estimating the individual risk of developing type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years based on established self-reported risk factors. Nesting individuals in 12 intersectional strata defined by combining sex/gender, educational level, and history of migration, we calculated measures to quantify the extent to which individual differences in diabetes risk were explained at strata level, and how much this was due to additive or multiplicative intersectional effects of social determinants.
resultsDrawing on data of 2,253 participants, we found good discriminatory accuracy of intersectional strata (variance partition coefficient = 14.00% in the simple intersectional model). Model-predicted GDRS means varied between 29.97 (corresponding to a "low risk" of < 2%) in women with high educational level and a history of migration, and 52.73 ("still low risk" of 2-5%) in men with low educational level without a history of migration. Variance in GDRS between strata was mainly explained by additive effects of social determinants (proportional change in variance to intersectional interaction model = 77.95%) with being male and having low educational level being associated with higher GDRS. There was no evidence of multiplicative effects in individual strata.
conclusionsType 2 diabetes risk differed between intersectional strata and can to some extent be explained at strata level. The role of intersectional effects was minor and needs to be further investigated. Findings suggest a need for specific preventive measures targeted at large groups with increased diabetes risk, such as men and persons with low educational level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.