Skip to main content

Table 3 Factors associated with willingness of type 2 diabetes patients to accept training to speak to their offspring regarding risks of type 2 diabetes and means of prevention

From: Are Malaysian Type 2 Diabetes patients willing to be trained to speak to their offspring about risk of diabetes and preventive measures?

Variables

Multiple Logistics Regression (MLogR)

Adj. Beta (SE)

Wald (df)

p-value

Adj. OR (95%CI)

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Family history of type 2 diabetes:

  Yes

0.72 (0.25)

8.564 (1)

0.003*

2.06 (1.27, 3.35)

  No

   

1

KNOWLEDGE OF RISK FACTORS

Overweight:

  Yes

0.40 (0.22)

3.843

0.045*

1.49 (1.01, 2.29)

  No

   

1

Age more than 40:

  Yes

0.63 (0.22)

8.280 (1)

0.04*

1,88 (1.22, 2.90)

  No

   

1

PERCEIVED BENEFIT

Speaking to offspring helps them to prevent diabetes:

  Disagree

 

9.537 (2)

0.008

1

  Neutral

−0.42 (1.08)

0.153 (1)

0.696

0.66 (0.80, 5.40)

  Agree

1.47 (0.72)

4.242 (1)

0.039*

4.34 (1.07, 17.73)

PERCEIVED BARRIER

I do not have much contact with my offspring:

  Agree

 

5.988 (2)

0.005

1

  Neutral

−1.16 (0.49)

5.718 (1)

0.017*

0.31 (0.12, 0.81)

  Disagree

−0.33 (0.34)

0.969 (1)

0.325

0.72 (0.37, 1.39)

My offspring are not open to advice from me:

  Agree

 

5.528 (2)

0.063

1

  Neutral

−0.46 (0.36)

1.641 (1)

0.045*

0.63 (0.31, 0.84)

  Disagree

0.21 (0.31)

0.439 (1)

0.508

1.23 (0.67, 2.27)

  1. Notes:
  2. Hosmer and Lemeshow test =0.849
  3. Variables with a p-value of < 0.05 with simple logistic regression were included in the multiple logistic regression
  4. Multiple logistic regression (no multicollinearity)
  5. All assumptions were met
  6. Sensitivity: 88.9%, specificity: 29.4%
  7. p-value = p-value from Wald’s tests
  8. CI Confidence interval, df Degree of freedom, OR Odds ratio
  9. * Statistically significant at p = 0.05