Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920340›Full record

ReviewDiabetologia2025

Partnership and marriage and risk of type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.

Bernd Kowall, Wolfgang Rathmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bernd KowallInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. bernd.kowall@uk-essen.de.
Wolfgang RathmannInstitute for Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we discuss how partnership and marriage influence cardiometabolic risk factors and risk of type 2 diabetes, and how couple-based approaches to type 2 diabetes prevention might complement individual-focused prevention efforts. There is some evidence that being married per se has a small positive effect on type 2 diabetes risk. Moreover, there is spousal concordance for many type 2 diabetes risk factors due to assortative mating and convergence during partnership, with weak to moderate correlations found for anthropometric measures, blood pressure, lipid concentrations, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity level. A meta-analysis shows that people have a higher risk of type 2 diabetes if their spouse has diabetes (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.47, 2.02). However, despite some evidence, there is still a lack of research on similar associations in relation to progression to type 2 diabetes and diabetes complications. Several studies have suggested that behaviour changes, for example smoking cessation or weight loss, in one partner increase the likelihood that the other partner will make the same changes. Subsequent studies of couple-based interventions that focus on both partners have shown that people are more likely to adhere to a diabetes prevention programme if their partners are also involved in the programme. However, the effect of the quality of marriage on the outcome of an intervention is still unclear. Couple-based interventions are promising, but there is a lack of RCTs comparing couple-based interventions with individual-centred interventions.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2MarriageFemaleHumansMaleRisk FactorsSpousesCouple-based interventionMarriagePartnershipReviewSpousal concordanceSpouseType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID39920340
PMCPMC11950033

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.