Skip to main content
Top

08-17-2018 | Diabetes prevention | Article

Understanding the complexity of glycaemic health: systematic bio-psychosocial modelling of fasting glucose in middle-age adults; a DynaHEALTH study

Journal: International Journal of Obesity

Authors: Estelle Lowry, Nina Rautio, Ville Karhunen, Jouko Miettunen, Leena Ala-Mursula, Juha Auvinen, Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi, Katri Puukka, Inga Prokopenko, Karl-Heinz Herzig, Alexandra Lewin, Sylvain Sebert, Marjo-Riitta Järvelin

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK

Abstract

Background

The prevention of the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is complicated by multidimensional interplays between biological and psychosocial factors acting at the individual level. To address the challenge we took a systematic approach, to explore the bio-psychosocial predictors of blood glucose in mid-age.

Methods

Based on the 31-year and 46-year follow-ups (5,078 participants, 43% male) of Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, we used a systematic strategy to select bio-psychosocial variables at 31 years to enable a data-driven approach. As selection criteria, the variable must be (i) a component of the metabolic syndrome or an indicator of psychosocial health using WHO guidelines, (ii) easily obtainable in general health check-ups and (iii) associated with fasting blood glucose at 46 years (P < 0.10). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to derive latent factors, and stepwise linear regression allowed exploration of relationships between factors and fasting glucose.

Results

Of all 26 variables originally considered, 19 met the selection criteria and were included in an exploratory factor analysis. Two variables were further excluded due to low loading (<0.3). We derived four latent factors, which we named as socioeconomic, metabolic, psychosocial and blood pressure status. The combination of metabolic and psychosocial factors, adjusted for sex, provided best prediction of fasting glucose at 46 years (explaining 10.7% of variation in glucose; P < 0.001). Regarding different bio-psychosocial pathways and relationships, the importance of psychosocial factors in addition to established metabolic risk factors was highlighted.

Conclusions

The present study supports evidence for the bio-psychosocial nature of adult glycemic health and exemplifies an evidence-based approach to model the bio-psychosocial relationships. The factorial model may help further research and public health practice in focusing also on psychosocial aspects in maintaining normoglycaemia in the prevention of cardio-metabolic diseases.
Literature
1.
WHO Global Report on Diabetes 2016.
2.
Danaei G, Finucane M, Lu Y, Singh G, Cowan M, Paciorek C, et al. National, regional and global trends in fasting plasma glucose and diabetes prevalence since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 370 country-years and 2·7 million participants. Lancet. 2011;378:31–40.PubMed
3.
Tabák AG, Jokela M, Akbaraly TN, Brunner EJ, Kivimäki M, Witte DR. Trajectories of glycaemia, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion before diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: an analysis from the Whitehall II study. Lancet . 2009;27:2215–21.CrossRef
4.
Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science . 1977;196:129–36.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Fava G, Sonino N. From the lesson of George Engel to current knowledge: the bio-pschyosocial model 40 years later. Psychother Psychosom. 2017;86:257–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Young-Hyman D, de Groot M, Hill-Briggs F, Gonzalez JS, Hood K, Peyrot M. Psychosocial care for people with diabetes: a position statement of the American diabetes association. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:2126–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
WHO Mental Health 2014 Available from: http://​www.​who.​int/​features/​factfiles/​mental_​health/​en/​ Cited 18 Dec 2017.
8.
International Diabetes Federation. Metabolic Syndrome. 2006.
9.
Sovio U, Kaakinen M, Tzoulaki I, Ruokonen A, Pouta A, Hartikainen AL, et al. How do changes in body mass index in infancy and childhood associate with cardiometabolic profile in adulthood? Findings from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 Study. Int J Obes. 2014;38:53–9.CrossRef
10.
Tobin MD, Sheehan NA, Scurrah KJ, Burton PR. Adjusting for treatment effects in studies of quantitative traits: antihypertensive therapy and systolic blood pressure. Stat Med. 2005;24:2911–35.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wu J, Province MA, Coon H, Hunt S, Eckfeldt J, Arnett D, et al. An investigation of the effects of lipid-lowering medications: genome-wide linkage analysis of lipids in the HyperGEN study. BMC Genet. 2007;8:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Muthèn L, Muthèn B. Mplus user’s guide. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthèn & Muthèn; 1998–2007..
13.
Kenward M, Molenberghs G. Likelihood based frequentist inference when data are missing at random. Stat Sci. 1998;13:236–47.CrossRef
14.
Osborne JW, Costello AB. Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. PARE. 2004;9.
15.
Sapnas KG, Zeller RA. Minimizing sample size when using exploratory factor analysis for measurement. J Nurs Meas. 2002;10:135–54.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Velicer W, Jackson D. Component analysis versus common factor-analysis—some further observations. Multivar Behav Res. 1990;25:97–114.CrossRef
17.
Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black W. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. London: Prentice-Hall; 1998.
18.
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238–46.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Browne M, Cudeck R . Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JSTesting structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62.
20.
Hu L & Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999. pp. 1–55.
21.
McDonald RP, Marsh HW. Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:247–55.CrossRef
22.
Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Kwapil TR, Eckblad M, Zinser MC. Putatively psychosis-prone subjects 10 years later. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994;103:171–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kwapil TR. Social anhedonia as a predictor of the development of schizophrenia–spectrum disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 1998;107:558–65.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ. The metabolic syndrome. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 2005;365:1415–28.CrossRef
25.
Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, Franklin BA, et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation . 2005;112:2735–52.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Marsland AL, McCaffery JM, Muldoon MF, Manuck SB. Systemic inflammation and the metabolic syndrome among middle-aged community volunteers. Metabolism . 2010;59:1801–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
McCaffery J, Marsland A, Strohacker K, Muldoon M, Manuck S. Factor structure underlying components of allostatic load. PLoS ONE. 2012;7 (10).
28.
Kaplan R, Spittel M, David D (Eds). Population health: behavioral and social science insights. AHRQ Publication No. 15-0002. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health; July 2015.
29.
Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. J Health Econ. 2010;29:1–28.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Martikainen P, Bartley M, Lahelma E. Psychosocial determinants of health in social epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:1091–3.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Horikoshi M, Beaumont R, Day FR, Warrington NM, Kooijman MN, Fernandez-Tajes J, et al. Genome-wide associations for birth weight and correlations with adult disease. Nature . 2016;538:248–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Stringhini S, Dugravot A, Shipley M, Goldberg M, Zins M, Kivimäki M, et al. Health behaviours, socioeconomic status, and mortality: further analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL Prospective Cohorts. PLoS Medicine. 2011;8 (2).
33.
Stringhini S, Tabak A, Akbaraly T, Sabia S, Shipley M, Marmot M, et al. Contribution of modifiable risk factors to social inequalities in type 2 diabetes: prospective Whitehall II cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345 :e5452.
34.
Paek KW, Chun KH, Jin KN, Lee KS. Do health behaviours moderate the effect of socioeconomic status on metabolic syndrome? AEP . 2006;16:756–62.PubMed
35.
Pampel F, Krueger P, Denney J. Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Annu Rev Sociol. 2010;36:349–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Herman JP, McKlveen JM, Solomon MB, Carvalho-Netto E, Myers B. Neural regulation of the stress response: glucocorticoid feedback mechanisms. Braz J Med Biol Red. 2012;45:292–298.CrossRef
37.
Derogatis Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci. 1974;19:1–15.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Sintonen H. The 15-D measure of health related quality of life: reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, working paper 41. 1994. ISSN 1038–9547.
39.
Ek E, Koiranen M, Raatikka VP, Järvelin MR, Taanila A. Psychosocial factors as mediators between migration and subjective well-being among young Finnish adults. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:1545–56.CrossRefPubMed
40.
OECD. Divided we stand—why inequality keeps rising, Paris. ISBN: 9789264111639 OECD Publishing 400 pages, 2011

Be confident that your patient care is up to date

Medicine Matters is being incorporated into Springer Medicine, our new medical education platform. 

Alongside the news coverage and expert commentary you have come to expect from Medicine Matters diabetes, Springer Medicine's complimentary membership also provides access to articles from renowned journals and a broad range of Continuing Medical Education programs. Create your free account »