4.6 Article

Sedentary behavior and prevalent diabetes in Non-Latino Whites, Non-Latino Blacks and Latinos: findings from the National Health Interview Survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 634-640

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu103

Keywords

chronic disease prevention; health disparities; NHIS; sedentary behavior; type II diabetes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Sedentary behavior is associated with type II diabetes, though little is known about prevalence of this behavior across racial/ethnic groups or how it may contribute to disparities in diabetes prevalence. In this study, we examined the association between sedentary behavior and diabetes in a diverse data set, and explored whether differences in sedentary behavior across racial/ethnic groups could contribute to disparities in diabetes. Methods Participants were 27 141 adults from the 2010 US National Health Interview Survey. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between self-reported, non-occupational sitting time, race/ethnicity and physician diagnosis of type II diabetes. Results In fully adjusted models, each hour of daily sitting was associated with 4% increased odds of diabetes (P < 0.01). Odds of diabetes were nearly double in Latinos (odds ratio [OR] = 1.83, confidence interval [CI] = 1.59-2.13) and Blacks (OR = 1.83, CI = 1.59-2.11) after adjusting for demographics and lifestyle factors. However, Blacks reported only slightly more sitting than Whites, and Latinos reported significantly less. Further adjustment for sitting hours in multivariate models did not attenuate disparities and slightly increased odds for Latinos (OR = 2.03, CI = 1.74-2.36). Conclusions Sitting appears to be an independent risk factor for diabetes across racial/ethnic groups, though it does not appear to account for disparities in diabetes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available