Cited by 42Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementHealth disparities and outcomesSocial Capital and Networks

Association between social capital and the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: An interim report of the Japan Environment and Children’s Study

Mizuno, Satoshi, Nishigori, Hidekazu, Sugiyama, Takashi, Takahashi, Fumiaki, Iwama, Noriyuki, Watanabe, Zen, Sakurai, Kasumi, Ishikuro, Mami +10 more·2016·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

Background Social capital is generally defined as the quality and frequency of social interactions with relatives, neighbors, and society. Social capital refers to broad concepts of social interactions and structures in individuals, communities and societies such as trust (e.g., neighborhood trust, which is social cohesion with neighbors) and social support (e.g., emotional support, which is the level of the feeling of being loved). Studies during the last few decades have shown that there is a significant inverse association between social capital and the prevalences of diseases such as depression and acute coronary syndrome. Significant inverse associations between trust, social support and the prevalence of diabetes have also been shown. However, associations between social capital and the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are less clear. Methods We used the primary dataset of the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), including 10,228 mothers with recorded obstetric outcomes from January to December 2011. In this study, we included 8874 the 10,228 participants. Diagnosis of GDM was determined using the criteria of the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS). The quality and quantity of social capital were measured with nine questions on a self-administered questionnaire during the second or third trimester. Using principal component analysis (PCA), we distinguished the following three components (indices) of social capital: (A) index of all nine questions about social capital, (B) index of emotional support and neighborhood trust and (C) index of generalized trust. The high factor loading variants of indices were as follows; (A) all nine variants, (B) five variants about emotional support and neighborhood trust and (C) two variants about generalized trust. Multivariate random effect modeling was used to calculate the odd ratios (ORs) for evaluating the association between these indices of social capital and the prevalence of GDM. This model was adjusted for baseline characteristics such as family income, BMI before pregnancy and smoking during pregnancy. Results Of the 8874 participants, 204 women developed GDM (2.30%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that index B, the index of emotional support and neighborhood trust (adjusted OR: 0.651, 95% CI: 0.429, 0.987) was significantly and independently associated with the prevalence of GDM. Conclusions We found that the 5-question index of emotional support and neighborhood trust is significantly associated with the prevalence of GDM during pregnancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.07.020

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Japan, six years later, GDM diagnosis was determined using Japan Diabetes Society criteria and total prevalence was 2.30%.

    “Six years later a diagnosis of GDM was determined using the criteria of the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS) and a total prevalence was assessed at 2.30% [225].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mizuno, S., Nishigori, H., Sugiyama, T., Takahashi, F., Iwama, N., Watanabe, Z., Sakurai, K., Ishikuro, M., Obara, T., Tatsuta, N., Nishijima, I., Fujiwara, I., Arima, T., Kuriyama, S., Metoki, H., Nakai, K., Inadera, H., & Yaegashi, N.
Affiliations
  • Tohoku University (JP)
  • Ehime University (JP)
  • Clinical Research, Innovation and Education Center, Tohoku University Hospital (JP)
  • University of Toyama (JP)
Corresponding author
Mizuno, Satoshi
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
120
Pages
132-141
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2509976466
Cited by
42
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of the Environment, the Government of Japan (MOE)
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
Keywords
social capital, gestational diabetes mellitus, neighborhood trust, social support, emotional support, generalized trust, social cohesion, pregnancy, Japan Environment and Children's Study
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Female, Humans, Income, Japan, Mothers, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Residence Characteristics, Social Support, Prevalence, Odds Ratio, Diabetes, Gestational, Social Capital

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review