Objective Low individual socioeconomic status (SES) is known to be associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the extent to which the local context in which people live may influence T2DM rates remains unclear. This study examines whether living in a low property value neighbourhood is associated with higher rates of T2DM independently of individual SES. Research Design and Methods Using cross-sectional data from the Maastricht Study (2010-2013) and geographical data from Statistics Netherlands, multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the association between neighbourhood property value and T2DM. Individual SES was based on education, occupation and income. Of the 2,056 participants (aged 40–75 years), 494 (24%) were diagnosed with T2DM. Results Individual SES was strongly associated with T2DM, but a significant proportion of the variance in T2DM was found at the neighbourhood level (VPC=9.2%; 95% CI=5.0% - 16%). Participants living in the poorest neighbourhoods had a 2.38 times higher odds ratio of T2DM compared to those living in the richest areas (95% CI=1.58 - 3.58), independently of individual SES. Conclusions Neighbourhood property value showed a significant association with T2DM, suggesting the usefulness of area-based programmes aimed at improving neighbourhood characteristics in order to tackle inequalities in T2DM.

Consolazio, D., Koster, A., Sarti, S., Schram, M., Stehouwer, C., Timmermans, E., et al. (2020). Neighbourhood property value and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Maastricht study: A multilevel study. PLOS ONE, 15(6) [10.1371/journal.pone.0234324].

Neighbourhood property value and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Maastricht study: A multilevel study

Consolazio, David
Primo
;
Sarti, Simone;
2020

Abstract

Objective Low individual socioeconomic status (SES) is known to be associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the extent to which the local context in which people live may influence T2DM rates remains unclear. This study examines whether living in a low property value neighbourhood is associated with higher rates of T2DM independently of individual SES. Research Design and Methods Using cross-sectional data from the Maastricht Study (2010-2013) and geographical data from Statistics Netherlands, multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the association between neighbourhood property value and T2DM. Individual SES was based on education, occupation and income. Of the 2,056 participants (aged 40–75 years), 494 (24%) were diagnosed with T2DM. Results Individual SES was strongly associated with T2DM, but a significant proportion of the variance in T2DM was found at the neighbourhood level (VPC=9.2%; 95% CI=5.0% - 16%). Participants living in the poorest neighbourhoods had a 2.38 times higher odds ratio of T2DM compared to those living in the richest areas (95% CI=1.58 - 3.58), independently of individual SES. Conclusions Neighbourhood property value showed a significant association with T2DM, suggesting the usefulness of area-based programmes aimed at improving neighbourhood characteristics in order to tackle inequalities in T2DM.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; Neighbourhood Effects; Health Inequalities
English
9-giu-2020
2020
15
6
e0234324
open
Consolazio, D., Koster, A., Sarti, S., Schram, M., Stehouwer, C., Timmermans, E., et al. (2020). Neighbourhood property value and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Maastricht study: A multilevel study. PLOS ONE, 15(6) [10.1371/journal.pone.0234324].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
journal.pone.0234324.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Dimensione 428 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
428 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/276896
Citazioni
  • Scopus 8
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
Social impact