Next Article in Journal
Mapping the Scientific Research on Suicide and Physical Activity: A Bibliometric Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Coronavirus Infection on Health-Related Quality of Life in Amateur CrossFit Athletes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph192416412
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Gender Differences in Unhealthy Lifestyle Behaviors among Adults with Diabetes in the United States between 1999 and 2018

by
Yu Wang
1,†,
Peihua Cao
2,3,†,
Fengyao Liu
4,†,
Yilin Chen
4,
Jingyu Xie
5,
Bingqing Bai
4,
Quanjun Liu
4,
Huan Ma
1,* and
Qingshan Geng
1,*
1
Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China
2
Clinical Research Center, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510280, China
3
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China
4
School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
5
JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16412; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416412
Submission received: 26 October 2022 / Revised: 29 November 2022 / Accepted: 5 December 2022 / Published: 7 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Health Behavior, Chronic Disease and Health Promotion)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Lifestyle management is important to patients with diabetes, but whether gender differences exist in lifestyle management is unclear. Data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 1999 to 2018) was used for this research. Gender differences were evaluated descriptively and using an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 8412 participants (48% women) were finally included. Across these surveys, the incidences of poor diet (OR: 1.26 (95% CI, 1.12, 1.43)), smoking (1.58 (1.35, 1.84)), alcohol consumption (1.94 (1.68, 2.25)) and sedentary behavior (1.20 (1.04, 1.39)) were more common in men, while depression (0.47 (0.37, 0.59)), obesity (0.69 (0.61, 0.78)) and insufficient physical activity (0.56 (0.49, 0.65)) were more common in women. Reductions in poor diet were greater in men between 1999 and 2000 and 2017 and 2018 (p = 0.037), while the mean body mass index (BMI) levels (p = 0.019) increased more among women. Furthermore, several gender differences were found to be related to age, race/ethnicity and marital/insurance/employment statuses. Our research found gender differences in diabetes-related unhealthy lifestyle behaviors and provides reference data for implementing measures to reduce the gender differences. Further work to reduce gender-specific barriers to a healthy lifestyle is warranted in order to further improve diabetes management.

1. Introduction

At around USD 379.5 billion per year, diabetes-related healthcare expenditure in the United States (US) is the highest in the world [1]. Unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, such as a high calorie diet, negative emotions, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise and sedentary behavior, can exacerbate diabetes and lead to further medical complications [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Conversely, lifestyle management that embraces healthy living can help improve prognosis [2,10,11]. Clinical guidelines for the management of diabetes in the US recommend lifestyles management as the preferred treatment for people with diabetes [12]. However, it remains unclear whether women and men have benefited equally.
Gender differences in the prevalence (10.8% in men versus 10.2% in women) and mortality (1.9 million per year in men versus 2.3 million per year in women) of diabetes have been previously reported [1,13]. Additionally, the prevalence of diabetes varies by age, race/ethnicity, family income and marital, insurance, employment and education statuses [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. However, previous studies mostly explored the causes of these gender differences from gene polymorphism or endogenous hormone secretion but paid less attention to the gender differences of lifestyle and other acquired factors [21,22]. Identifying gender differences in diabetes-related lifestyle behaviors is an important step in leading the way towards improvements in quality of life, reductions in healthcare costs and lower overall prevalence and mortality.
Our study aimed to examine the gender differences and temporal trends in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors among adults with diabetes in the US using data from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANESs) from 1999 to 2018. We further examined how these differences were influenced by age, race/ethnicity, family income and marital, insurance, employment and education statuses.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

The NHANES collects participant-reported data from a nationally representative sample of US residents. The complete protocols and methods have been previously reported [23]. In this analysis, data from people with a fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 126 mg/dL and an HbA1c level ≥ 6.5% or self-reported diabetes were extracted from the ten 2-year NHANES cycles conducted between 1999 and 2018. Participants with incomplete dietary data were excluded from the dietary analysis.

2.2. Definitions

Information on age, race/ethnicity, marital/employment/education/family income statuses, diet, depression symptoms, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity and sedentary behavior was extracted from the NHANES database.
The Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR) was used to estimate the adequacy of family income (<1.30 was considered comfortable, while ≥3.50 was considered poor) [24]. Using the American Heart Association (AHA) secondary diet score to estimate dietary management; eight dietary elements were included, with a total score of 80. A score < 32 was considered to indicate a poor diet [25]. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was used to indicate depression, where the score was ≥10 [26]. Obesity was defined as a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. Smoking and alcohol consumption were used to represent the proportion of diabetes participants with current smoking and alcohol consumption behaviors. A participant was considered to undertake insufficient physical exercise if they reported engaging in <150 min of accumulated moderate-intensity activity or <75 min of vigorous-intensity activity per week (or an equivalent combination of moderate and vigorous activity). Participants were considered to have sedentary behavior if they reported that they routinely sat down for >6 h per day.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Age-standardized summary statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed by using the age distribution (20–39, 40–59 or ≥60 years old) of adults with diabetes from 1999 to 2018 as the standard. Means were estimated for risk factors measured on a continuous scale, and prevalence was estimated for categorical variables. Age-standardized men-to-women differences for different unhealthy lifestyle behaviors were computed by each survey cycle. Men-to-women odds ratios (ORs), with 95% CIs, were estimated using the multivariable logistic regression model. To examine the temporal trends for unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, p values for gender differences across calendar periods were derived by adding an interaction term between the gender and calendar period to the model. For each kind of lifestyle behavior, respondents with missing data were excluded from the analyses.
Subgroup analyses were conducted by age group (20–39, 40–59 or ≥60 years old), race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black or other), marital status (married or living with a partner, never married and widowed, divorced or separated), insurance status (insured or uninsured), employment status (unemployed or employed), education level (below High School, High School Graduate or General Educational Development or some College or above) and family income (PIR < 1.30, 1.30 to 3.50 or ≥3.50). To assess whether gender differences in temporal trends differed from those subgroups above, we added three-way interaction terms (gender, calendar period and subgroup variables) to the model.
To obtain nationally representative values, all analyses incorporated the NHANES sampling weights, strata and primary sampling units (PSU) to account for the complex sampling design. Analyses were performed in R version 4.1.12 (https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 23 November 2021). RStudio Inc.). A two-tailed α value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

A total of 101,316 participants were included in the NHANES database from 1999 to 2018. For the purpose of our study, we first excluded participants who lacked questionnaire or laboratory data (n = 4474), participants who were breastfeeding or pregnant (n = 2113) and participants who were younger than 20 years old (n = 44,158). Finally, 8412 diabetes patients (48% women) were selected for further analysis according to fasting blood glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, glycosylated hemoglobin level ≥ 6.5% or self-reported diabetes. A total of 643 participants were excluded from diet analysis due to a lack of dietary data. The numbers of adults with diabetes and adult participants from each 2-year NHANES cycle from 1999 to 2018 are shown in Table S1 in the Data Supplement. The results of the subgroup analysis are shown in Figures S1–S7 in the Data Supplement.

3.1. Gender Differences in Diet

Changes in the mean AHA secondary diet score over time were similar in women and men (Figure 1A). There were indications that the mean score increased slightly over time. The mean scores in 1999–2000 was 36.3 for men and 37.5 for women, and in 2017–2018, they were 37.7 and 38.6, respectively (Table 1 and Tables S2–S10 in the Data Supplement). We found no indications of a gender difference in diet score over time (pfor interaction by gender = 0.245) or an interaction with other demographic variables (Tables S11 and S12 in the Data Supplement).
The proportion of both men and women with a poor diet decreased over the course of the surveys (Figure 1B). More significant reductions were seen in men, but they also had higher rates of poor diet before 2015. In 1999–2000, 41.6% of men and 35.4% of women had a poor diet. In 2017–2018, this decreased to 31.9% and 32.8%, respectively (Table 1 and Tables S2–S10 in the Data Supplement). Over the course of the surveys, a poor diet was observed in a higher proportion of men than women (30.0% of women versus 35.1% of men, OR, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.12–1.43), p < 0.001; pfor interaction by gender = 0.037; Figure 2; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). Gender differences in poor diet were found to be influenced by marital status (pfor interaction = 0.023; Table S11 in the Data Supplement) and employment status (pfor interaction = 0.005; Table S12 in the Data Supplement). A poor diet was significantly less prevalent in women vs. men who were married or living with partners, widowed, divorced or separated (Figure 3A). Furthermore, the proportions of men and women with a poor diet were lower among those who were married or living with partners than among those with other martial statuses (Figure 3A and Figure S3 in the Data Supplement). A poor diet was much less prevalent in women who were unemployed than in men who were unemployed and in men and women who were employed (Figure 3B and Figure S5 in the Data Supplement).

3.2. Gender Differences in Negative Emotion

The mean PHQ-9 score was low and changed similarly in both genders over the course of the surveys (Figure 1C). In the first survey from 2005–2006, it was 2.6 in men and 3.8 in women, increasing slightly to 3.0 in men and 4.4 in women by 2017–2018 (pfor interaction by gender over the course of the surveys = 0.425; Table 1 and Tables S5–S11 in the Data Supplement). Gender differences in the mean PHQ-9 score were found to be influenced by age (pfor interaction = 0.027) and insurance status (pfor interaction = 0.001; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). Gender differences by education status were close to statistical significance (pfor interaction = 0.054; Table S12 in the Data Supplement).
The proportion of women with depression was consistently higher than that in men throughout the surveys (first included in 2005–2006). Differences were the greatest between 2011 and 2016, becoming more similar in 2017–2018 (Figure 1D, Table 1 and Tables S5–S10 in the Data Supplement). Although women had higher rates of depression over the course of the surveys (10.8% of women versus 5.6% of men, OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.37–0.59], p < 0.001, Figure 2), we did not find gender to be a significant factor (pfor interaction by gender = 0.841, Table S11 in the Data Supplement). However, when grouped by insurance status, we found higher rates of depression among those who were uninsured vs. insured (Table S11 and Figure S4 in the Data Supplement) but no statistically significant gender difference (pfor interaction by gender and Insurance Status = 0.654; Table S11 in the Data Supplement).

3.3. Gender Differences in BMI

The mean BMI increased in both men and women over the course of the surveys, it being consistently higher in women (Figure 1E). In 1999–2000, the mean BMI was 31.2 kg/m2 in men and 32.6 kg/m2 in women. In 2017–2018, it was 32.0 kg/m2 and 34.6 kg/m2, respectively. The increase in mean BMI was higher in women than in men (pfor interaction by gender = 0.019; Figure 2, Table 1, Tables S2 and S11 in the Data Supplement). We also found a statistically significant interaction between gender and race/ethnicity (pfor interaction by gender and race/ethnicity = 0.009; Table S11 in the Data Supplement).
The proportion of participants who were obese increased similarly over the course of the surveys (pfor interaction by gender = 0.078; Figure 1F, Table 1 and Tables S2–S11 in the Data Supplement). Over the surveys, women had a higher prevalence of obesity than men (62.2% of women versus 53.3% of men, OR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.61–0.78), p < 0.001, Figure 2). We found significant gender differences in obesity trends by employment status group (pfor interaction < 0.001; Table S12, Figure 3C and Figure S5 in the Data Supplement) and differences approaching statistical significance by race/ethnicity (pfor interaction = 0.061; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). Obesity was much less prevalent in men and women who were unemployed (Figure 3C).

3.4. Gender Differences in Smoking and Alcohol Consumption

There were indications that smoking rates decreased slightly over time for men but stayed more stable for women. In 1999–2000, 23.0% of men and 13.5% of women were smokers, while 15.8% and 13.8% were smokers in 2017–2018 (Figure 1G, Table 1 and Table S2 in the Data Supplement). Despite finding smoking to be more common in men than in women (14.3% of women versus 20.9% of men, OR, 1.58 (95% CI, 1.35–1.84); p < 0.001; Figure 2), we did not find a statistically significant interaction by gender over the surveys (pfor interaction = 0.073; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). Gender differences in smoking were found to be influenced by employment status (pfor interaction = 0.003; Table S12 and Figure S5 in the Data Supplement), it being much less prevalent in unemployed women than in unemployed men or employed men and women (Figure 3D).
The proportion of alcohol consumption increased equally between the genders from 1999 to 2018 (Figure 1H). In 1999–2000, the proportion of participants who drank alcohol was 49.9% in men and 32.0% in women. In 2017–2018, it was 64.6% in men and 54.9% in women. Alcohol consumption was observed in a higher proportion of men than women over the course of the surveys (42.2% of women versus 58.5% of men, OR, 1.94 (95% CI, 1.68–2.25), p < 0.001, Figure 2, Table 1 and Table S2 in the Data Supplement); however, we found no significant effect of gender (pfor interaction by gender = 0.170; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). Gender differences were influenced by employment status (pfor interaction < 0.001; Table S12 and Figure S5 in the Data Supplement), as they were much less prevalent in unemployed women than in unemployed men or employed men and women (Figure 3E).

3.5. Gender Differences in Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior

The proportion of participants engaging in an insufficient amount of physical activity decreased equally for women and men over the course of the surveys (Figure 1I). This was first included in 2007–2008, when 49.1% of men had insufficient physical activity compared with 67.9% of women. By 2017–2018, this was seen in 41.4% of men and 54.1% of women (Table 1 and Table S6 in the Data Supplement). Although insufficient physical activity was more common in women than in men over the course of the surveys (42.1% of women vs. 33.4% of men, OR, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.49–0.65), p < 0.001; Figure 2), we did not find the effect of gender to be significant (pfor interaction = 0.372; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). Gender differences in insufficient physical activity were influenced by insurance status, as they were less common in the uninsured (pfor interaction <0.001; Figure 3F and Figure S4 in the Data Supplement).
The proportion of participants with sedentary behavior over the course of the surveys showed no differences between the genders (Figure 1J; pfor interaction = 0.827; Table S11 in the Data Supplement). There was an upward trend in both genders from 2007 to 2014, which then declined (Figure 1J, Table 1 and Tables S2–S10 in the Data Supplement). Men were more likely to have sedentary behavior than women (28.6% of women vs. 32.9% of men, OR, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04–1.39), p = 0.009; Figure 2) We also found the prevalence of sedentary behavior to be influenced by insurance status (pfor interaction < 0.001) and age (pfor interaction = 0.008; Table S11, Figures S1 and S4 in the Data Supplement), it being more prevalent in those who were uninsured or older (Figure 3G–H).

4. Discussion

Our analysis highlighted gender differences in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors among adults with diabetes in the US nationally representative NHANESs from 1999 to 2018. Our cross-survey analysis indicated a higher proportion of a poor diet, smoking, alcohol consumption and sedentary behavior in men with diabetes, while depression, obesity and insufficient physical activity rates were higher in women. Temporal trends over the course of the surveys were generally similar between men and women. Reductions over time in the proportion of respondents with a poor diet were greater in men than in women, while the mean BMI was consistently higher in women, and the gender difference continued to increase. Gender differences of unhealthy lifestyles in diabetes patients are not entirely consistent with the overall population in the United States. The gender differences of the obesity rate and insufficient physical activity rate in people with diabetes were higher than those in the whole population [27,28]. Overall, despite improvements in some diabetes-related unhealthy lifestyle behaviors (such as poor diet, smoking and insufficient physical inactivity), the management of these factors needs to continue in order to achieve better outcomes.
Diabetes prevalence and mortality is also known to vary by age [14]. Globally, women with diabetes have a higher mortality than men. In particular, women over 60 years of age with diabetes have a higher mortality rate than men over 60 years; however, opposing gender differences have been shown in North America [13]. Our data show that a significantly higher proportion of US men aged over 60 years with diabetes have a poor diet, smoke, consume alcohol or engage in sedentary behavior compared to any other age groups, among men or women. These results may partly explain the opposite gender differences seen in North America. Similar studies in other parts of the world are lacking but may be able to provide an additional rationale behind the observed gender differences in diabetes mortality.
In our analysis, the prevalence of depression in women with diabetes was consistently higher than that for men and increased between 2005 and 2016, while the mean PHQ-9 score remained at a low level. This finding is consistent with the results of a previous meta-analysis where women had a higher incidence of moderate or major depression than men. The reasons behind the increased burden of depression among women is multi-factorial and poorly understood. Biological factors and social disadvantage could be factors in this phenomenon [29]. Of interest, we noted a decrease in the prevalence of depression in women with diabetes between 2015 and 2018; at the same time, there was an increase in prevalence among men with diabetes.
It is worth noting that women with diabetes consistently had a higher mean BMI than men in our analysis, and this gap increased year by year. However, the gender differences in BMI levels and obesity may be related to biological factors [30]. Previous studies have shown that alcohol consumption reduces the risk of diabetes in obese or female diabetes patients [31], a possible explanation is that obesity-induced insulin resistance is suppressed through moderate drinking [32], but the guidelines do not recommend starting drinking for any reason for people who do not drink [33]. Therefore, more attention is needed to be paid because of the increasing trends of alcohol consumption rates in both men and women with diabetes.
Previous studies have indicated that marriage is associated with a healthier diet [34], and our study found the same phenomenon in women and men with diabetes. Furthermore, women with diabetes who were married or living with partners had a lower prevalence of a poor diet than men or women who were never married.
Employment status has been shown to influence health [35,36]. We found a slightly higher prevalence of smoking and alcohol drinking among men with diabetes than among women. Additionally, we found unemployment to have a significant influence on the proportion of women who smoked and drank alcohol, these rates being lower than those in employed women, potentially reflecting a lower income status. Similarly, the proportion of women with diabetes and a poor diet was lower in those who were unemployed vs. employed. The effect of unemployment on unhealthy lifestyle behaviors in women appears to be complex. Potentially, the decline in smoking and drinking behaviors may be related to the decline in poor diet among unemployed women with diabetes. The number of unemployed women with diabetes is higher than the number of unemployed men with diabetes, which may also play an important role.
Insurance status can modify health outcomes for people with diabetes [16,37,38]. We found that the gender differences in insufficient physical activity existed whether they were insured or not, while the gender differences in sedentary behavior exist only in the insured group. Furthermore, as reported in previous studies, several diabetes-related unhealthy lifestyle behaviors also varied by race/ethnicity, education status and family income levels but were not found to be associated with significant gender differences [19,35,39].
Overall, our findings suggest that lifestyle management remains an important modifiable factor in people with diabetes. Identifying and rectifying barriers to a healthy lifestyle, particularly for those who are older, might lead to better morbidity and mortality outcomes. For men, key areas for improvement appeared to be diet, smoking, alcohol consumption and sedentary behavior, while for women, key areas were weight management and physical exercise. Our analysis highlighted the effect of demographic characteristics on observed gender differences in people with diabetes, providing additional insight into population groups that might require additional guidance or support to improve their lifestyle. Strengthening the control of smoking and alcohol consumption for diabetes patients is still necessary. Furthermore, insurance coverage enhancement would benefit everyone. Identifying and tackling the gender-specific barriers to a healthy lifestyle can reduce gender differences in outcomes for diabetes and many other conditions. It might therefore be associated with reduced mortality and morbidity and an improved quality of life in the general population.
The strengths of this study lie in the comprehensive nature of the analysis. We provide detailed, reliable and nationally representative temporal findings on the gender differences in lifestyle behaviors among adult diabetes patients in the US. The NHANES surveys are large and subject to rigorous quality control, and as such, they represent a high-quality data source. Our findings facilitate the formulation of targeted policies to reduce the prevalence and mortality of diabetes.
This study also has some limitations. First, NHANES was a cross-sectional study, and the reasons for gender differences in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors among adults with diabetes can only be inferred. We were also not able to determine the impact of gender-specific trends on changes in diabetes morbidity and mortality. Second, there may also be an interaction occurring between race/ethnicity, family income, marital, employment, insurance and education statuses that we have not considered. Therefore, our results cannot accurately show the causal relationship between these factors and diabetes-related unhealthy lifestyle behaviors but can only reflect some correlation. Third, each survey included data from a different sample of participants, so sampling errors could affect comparisons over time. We standardized the data by age and weighted them according to recommendations to minimize the sampling error. Lastly, some data from NHANES are self-reported, leading to a higher potential for misreporting than in raw clinical data.

5. Conclusions

Through the analysis of a large-sample-size database, our results present the changes in lifestyle behaviors among diabetes patients from 1999 to 2018 for the first time and show the gender differences of these variables. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted to comprehensively describe the gender differences in the lifestyle of diabetes patients and the potential influencing factors. In conclusion, our findings first suggest that substandard lifestyle management in patients with diabetes existed during the past 20 years. Secondly, we found gender differences in lifestyle management among diabetes patients. Finally, we also found that the above gender differences may be related to patients’ socioeconomic status. The results of this study may provide reference data for the formulation of policies to improve the lifestyle of diabetes patients in order to improve the prognosis of diabetes in the future. More comprehensive surveys should be conducted on the lifestyle and socioeconomic status of patients with diabetes in the future, and regional attempts can also be made to develop targeted management measures and observe the efficacy.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph192416412/s1, Table S1 in the supplement shows the number of participants with diabetes during each 2-year cycle; Tables S2–S10 shows data on participants with diabetes of different genders during each 2-year cycle; Tables S11 and S12 shows gender differences in lifestyle among participants with diabetes and the results of subgroup analyses; Figures S1–S7, in the form of OR values, demonstrated gender differences in lifestyle of diabetes participants in each subgroup analysis.

Author Contributions

Data curation, Y.W., P.C. and F.L.; Formal analysis, Y.W., P.C. and J.X.; Funding acquisition, Q.G.; Methodology, F.L. and Y.C.; Project administration, H.M. and Q.G.; Resources, B.B. and Q.L.; Supervision, Q.G.; Writing—original draft, Y.W. and P.C.; Writing—review & editing, H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFC2001805), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81903406) and Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (Grant No. 202201011245).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful for all the efforts made by the staff of the NCHS at the CDC in making the NHANES database publicly available online and for all the participants in this study. For the continuous consultation in the study design and implementation, we thank Zhihong Wang (Diabetes Branch of Henan Medical Association).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brussels, B. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th ed.; International Diabetes Federation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://diabetesatlas.org/atlas/tenth-edition/ (accessed on 6 December 2021).
  2. Chatterjee, S.; Khunti, K.; Davies, M.J. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet 2017, 389, 2239–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Joseph, J.J.; Deedwania, P.; Acharya, T.; Aguilar, D.; Bhatt, D.L.; Chyun, D.A.; Di Palo, K.E.; Golden, S.H.; Sperling, L.S. Comprehensive Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2022, 145, E722–E759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ng, M.; Fleming, T.; Robinson, M.; Thomson, B.; Graetz, N.; Margono, C.; Mullany, E.C.; Biryukov, S.; Abbafati, C.; Abera, S.F.; et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2014, 384, 766–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Pan, A.; Wang, Y.; Talaei, M.; Hu, F.B.; Wu, T. Relation of active, passive, and quitting smoking with incident type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015, 3, 958–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Gepner, Y.; Golan, R.; Harman-Boehm, I.; Henkin, Y.; Schwarzfuchs, D.; Shelef, I.; Durst, R.; Kovsan, J.; Bolotin, A.; Leitersdorf, E.; et al. Effects of Initiating Moderate Alcohol Intake on Cardiometabolic Risk in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes A 2-Year Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 163, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Smith, A.D.; Crippa, A.; Woodcock, J.; Brage, S. Physical activity and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetologia 2016, 59, 2527–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Wilmot, E.G.; Edwardson, C.L.; Achana, F.A.; Davies, M.J.; Gorely, T.; Gray, L.J.; Khunti, K.; Yates, T.; Biddle, S.J.H. Sedentary time in adults and the association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2012, 55, 2895–2905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ciumărnean, L.; Milaciu, M.V.; Negrean, V.; Orășan, O.H.; Vesa, S.C.; Sălăgean, O.; Iluţ, S.; Vlaicu, S.I. Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Physical Activity for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in the Elderly. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yancy, W.S.; Mayer, S.B.; Coffman, C.J.; Smith, V.A.; Kolotkin, R.L.; Geiselman, P.J.; Gieselman, P.J.; McVay, M.A.; Oddone, E.Z.; Voils, C.I. Effect of Allowing Choice of Diet on Weight Loss a Randomized Trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 162, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. DiPietro, L.; Gribok, A.; Stevens, M.S.; Hamm, L.F.; Rumpler, W. Three 15-min Bouts of Moderate Postmeal Walking Significantly Improves 24-h Glycemic Control in Older People at Risk for Impaired Glucose Tolerance. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 3262–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, S13–S28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Rhys, W. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 9th ed.; International Diabetes Federation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: https://diabetesatlas.org/resources/ (accessed on 20 November 2021).
  14. Sattar, N.; Rawshani, A.; Franzen, S.; Rawshani, A.; Svensson, A.M.; Rosengren, A.; McGuire, D.K.; Eliasson, B.; Gudbjörnsdottir, S. Age at Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Associations with Cardiovascular and Mortality Risks Findings from the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Circulation 2019, 139, 2228–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cheng, Y.J.; Kanaya, A.M.; Araneta, M.R.G.; Saydah, S.H.; Kahn, H.S.; Gregg, E.W.; Fujimoto, W.Y.; Imperatore, G. Prevalence of Diabetes by Race and Ethnicity in the United States, 2011–2016. JAMA 2019, 322, 2389–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marino, M.; Angier, H.; Springer, R.; Valenzuela, S.; Hoopes, M.; O’Malley, J.; Suchocki, A.; Heintzman, J.; DeVoe, J.; Huguet, N. The Affordable Care Act: Effects of Insurance on Diabetes Biomarkers. Diabetes Care 2020, 43, 2074–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Anderson, J.E.; Greene, M.A.; Griffin, J.W.; Kohrman, D.B.; Lorber, D.; Saudek, C.D.; Schatz, D.; Siminerio, L. Diabetes and Employment. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, S112–S117. [Google Scholar]
  18. Trief, P.M.; Himes, C.L.; Orendorff, R.; Weinstock, R.S. The Marital Relationship and Psychosocial Adaptation and Glycemic Control of Individuals with Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001, 24, 1384–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Agardh, E.; Allebeck, P.; Hallqvist, J.; Moradi, T.; Sidorchuk, A. Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Leuk. Res. 2011, 40, 804–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mathisen, J.; Jensen, A.K.G.; Andersen, I.; Andersen, G.S.; Hvidtfeldt, U.A.; Rod, N.H. Education and incident type 2 diabetes: Quantifying the impact of differential exposure and susceptibility to being overweight or obese. Diabetologia 2020, 63, 1764–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yamada, Y.; Matsuo, H.; Segawa, T.; Watanabe, S.; Kato, K.; Kameyama, T.; Yokoi, K.; Ichihara, S.; Metoki, N.; Yoshida, H.; et al. Assessment of genetic factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2006, 18, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ding, E.L.; Song, Y.Q.; Malik, V.S.; Liu, S.M. Sex differences of endogenous sex hormones and risk of type 2 diabetes—A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2006, 295, 1288–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm (accessed on 10 September 2021).
  24. Fang, M.; Wang, D.; Coresh, J.; Selvin, E. Trends in Diabetes Treatment and Control in US Adults, 1999-2018. New Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 2219–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rehm, C.D.; Penalvo, J.L.; Afshin, A.; Mozaffarian, D. Dietary Intake Among US Adults, 1999-2012. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2016, 315, 2542–2553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Patel, J.S.; Oh, Y.; Rand, K.L.; Wu, W.; Cyders, M.A.; Kroenke, K.; Stewart, J.C. Measurement invariance of the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression screener in US adults across sex, race/ethnicity, and education level: NHANES 2005–2016. Depress. Anxiety 2019, 36, 813–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Inoue, Y.; Qin, B.; Poti, J.; Sokol, R.; Gordon-Larsen, P. Epidemiology of Obesity in Adults: Latest Trends. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2018, 7, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1077–e1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Salk, R.H.; Hyde, J.S.; Abramson, L.Y. Gender differences in depression in representative national samples: Meta-analyses of diagnoses and symptoms. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 783–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Goossens, G.H.; Jocken, J.W.E.; Blaak, E.E. Sexual dimorphism in cardiometabolic health: The role of adipose tissue, muscle and liver. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2021, 17, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. He, X.; Rebholz, C.M.; Daya, N.; Lazo, M.; Selvin, E. Alcohol consumption and incident diabetes: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Diabetologia 2019, 62, 770–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wakabayashi, I. Light-to-Moderate Alcohol Drinking Reduces the Impact of Obesity on the Risk of Diabetes Mellitus. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2014, 75, 1032–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. US Department of Health and Human Services. US Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans: 2015–2020, 8th ed.; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/ (accessed on 2 January 2020).
  34. Robles, T.F.; Slatcher, R.B.; Trombello, J.M.; McGinn, M.M. Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140, 140–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Schultz, W.M.; Kelli, H.M.; Lisko, J.C.; Varghese, T.; Shen, J.; Sandesara, P.; Quyyumi, A.A.; Taylor, H.A.; Gulati, M.; Harold, J.G. Socioeconomic Status and Cardiovascular Outcomes Challenges and Interventions. Circulation 2018, 137, 2166–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lo, C.C.; Cheng, T.C. Race, unemployment rate, and chronic mental illness: A 15-year trend analysis. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2014, 49, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lipton, B.J. Association between Health Insurance and Health among Adults with Diabetes: Evidence from Medicare. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2019, 68, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Rogers, M.A.M.; Lee, J.M.; Tipirneni, R.; Banerjee, T.; Kim, C. Interruptions in Private Health Insurance and Outcomes in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study. Health Aff. 2018, 37, 1024–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xu, G.; Liu, B.; Sun, Y.; Du, Y.; Snetselaar, L.G.; Hu, F.B.; Bao, W. Prevalence of diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes among US adults in 2016 and 2017: Population based study. BMJ 2018, 362, k1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 16412 g001 550
Figure 1. Trends in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors among participants of the NHANES surveys with diabetes by gender and over time. AHA: American Heart Association; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; BMI: Body Mass Index.
Figure 1. Trends in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors among participants of the NHANES surveys with diabetes by gender and over time. AHA: American Heart Association; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; BMI: Body Mass Index.
Ijerph 19 16412 g001
Ijerph 19 16412 g002 550
Figure 2. Gender differences in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors in the 1999 to 2018 NHANES surveys. Odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) of women vs. men to evaluate the association between gender and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors in adults with diabetes (poor diet, depression, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, insufficient physical activity and sedentary behavior). Women served as the reference group.
Figure 2. Gender differences in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors in the 1999 to 2018 NHANES surveys. Odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) of women vs. men to evaluate the association between gender and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors in adults with diabetes (poor diet, depression, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, insufficient physical activity and sedentary behavior). Women served as the reference group.
Ijerph 19 16412 g002
Ijerph 19 16412 g003 550
Figure 3. Proportion of participants in the NHANES surveys 1999–2018 with diabetes and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors by gender and age, marital status, insurance status and employment status. Married includes married or living with partners; widowed includes widowed, divorced and separated. (A): Gender differences in Poor Diet by marital status; (B): Gender differences in Poor Diet by Employment status; (C): Gender differences in Obesity by Employment status; (D): Gender differences in Smoking by Employment status; (E): Gender differences in Alcohol Consumption by Employment status; (F): Gender differences in Insufficient Physical Activity by Insurance status; (G): Gender differences in Sedentary Behavior by Insurance status; (H): Gender differences in Sedentary Behavior by Age group. ** p ≤ 0.001, * p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Proportion of participants in the NHANES surveys 1999–2018 with diabetes and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors by gender and age, marital status, insurance status and employment status. Married includes married or living with partners; widowed includes widowed, divorced and separated. (A): Gender differences in Poor Diet by marital status; (B): Gender differences in Poor Diet by Employment status; (C): Gender differences in Obesity by Employment status; (D): Gender differences in Smoking by Employment status; (E): Gender differences in Alcohol Consumption by Employment status; (F): Gender differences in Insufficient Physical Activity by Insurance status; (G): Gender differences in Sedentary Behavior by Insurance status; (H): Gender differences in Sedentary Behavior by Age group. ** p ≤ 0.001, * p < 0.05.
Ijerph 19 16412 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of participants with diabetes in the 2017~2018 NHANES survey.
Table 1. Characteristics of participants with diabetes in the 2017~2018 NHANES survey.
Men (N = 578)Women (N = 516)Men vs. Women
Age (%) p = 0.100
20–39 y4.32 (1.92–6.72)8.24 (5.25–11.23)
40–59 y28.61 (22.71–34.52)26.72 (20.23–33.21)
≥60 y67.07 (60.08–74.05)65.04 (56.84–73.24)
Race/Ethnicity (%) p = 0.236
Non-Hispanic White63.27 (55.85–70.68)58.00 (51.86–64.14)
Non-Hispanic Black10.45 (6.78–14.13)15.27 (9.91–20.64)
Hispanic13.29 (9.35–17.24)15.94 (12.26–19.62)
Others12.99 (9.06–16.91)10.79 (6.71–14.87)
Insurance Status (%) p = 0.851
Uninsured8.10 (3.09–13.12)7.65 (5.26–10.03)
Insured91.78 (86.78–96.77)92.21 (89.91–94.51)
Employment Status (%) p = 0.038
Unemployed42.53 (36.91–48.14)34.49 (28.35–40.64)
Employed57.44 (51.80–63.08)65.51 (59.36–71.65)
Marital Status (%) p < 0.001
Married or living with partner73.98 (68.07–79.88)56.70 (51.39–62.02)
Never married6.90 (4.52–9.27)6.32 (3.65–8.99)
Widowed, divorced, separated19.06 (13.48–24.65)36.90 (31.03–42.76)
Education Status (%) p = 0.024
Below High School59.75 (53.40–66.11)49.27 (43.93–54.61)
High school graduate or GED25.08 (19.95–30.20)32.41 (26.84–37.98)
Some college or above14.84 (11.03–18.65)18.25 (13.96–22.54)
Family Income Status (%) p = 0.302
PIR < 1.3015.78 (11.61–19.95)19.14 (16.39–21.90)
PIR: 1.30–3.4935.27 (29.28–41.26)39.40 (32.35–46.46)
PIR ≥ 3.5038.19 (29.91–46.46)30.99 (24.23–37.74)
AHA Secondary Diet Score37.67 (±0.83)38.63 (±0.99)−0.97 (±1.13)
Poor Diet (%)31.86 (25.19–38.53)32.78 (25.81–39.76)−0.93 (−10.50–8.65)
PHQ-9 score3.02 (±0.26)4.33 (±0.28)−1.31 (±0.40)
Depression (%)10.44 (6.86–14.02)10.89 (6.73–15.05)−0.45 (−5.89–5.00)
BMI (kg/m2)31.95 (±0.53)34.61 (±0.55)−2.67 (±0.59)
Obesity (%)55.52 (48.98–62.07)67.76 (62.44–73.07)−12.23 (−20.60–−3.87)
Smoking (%)15.79 (11.49–20.09)13.76 (8.61–18.91)2.03 (−4.63–8.68)
Alcohol Consumption (%)64.57 (56.37–72.77)54.91 (47.17–62.65)9.66 (−1.53–20.84)
Insufficient Physical Activity (%)41.38 (35.25–47.51)54.13 (47.53–60.73)−12.75 (−21.69–−3.81)
Sedentary Behavior (%)39.38 (33.60–45.16)34.62 (29.17–40.06)4.76 (−3.12–12.64)
AHA, American Heart Association; BMI, body mass index; GED, General Educational Development; PHQ, Patient Health Questionnaire; PIR, Poverty Impact Ratio. Values are the mean for continuous variables and the percentage for categorical variables, age-standardized by the age composition ratio of adult diabetes participants. Values between brackets indicate a 95% CI for the constituent ratio. Values between brackets indicate the standard deviation (SD) for the mean.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.; Cao, P.; Liu, F.; Chen, Y.; Xie, J.; Bai, B.; Liu, Q.; Ma, H.; Geng, Q. Gender Differences in Unhealthy Lifestyle Behaviors among Adults with Diabetes in the United States between 1999 and 2018. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416412

AMA Style

Wang Y, Cao P, Liu F, Chen Y, Xie J, Bai B, Liu Q, Ma H, Geng Q. Gender Differences in Unhealthy Lifestyle Behaviors among Adults with Diabetes in the United States between 1999 and 2018. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416412

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yu, Peihua Cao, Fengyao Liu, Yilin Chen, Jingyu Xie, Bingqing Bai, Quanjun Liu, Huan Ma, and Qingshan Geng. 2022. "Gender Differences in Unhealthy Lifestyle Behaviors among Adults with Diabetes in the United States between 1999 and 2018" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416412

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop