Towards a Parsimonious Pathway Model of Modifiable and Mediating Risk Factors Leading to Diabetes Risk

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Illustration of the hypothesized pathways between Lifestyle Risk, Physiological Load and Diabetes Risk. Lifestyle Risk has a positive but indirect effect on Diabetes Risk through the mediator of Physiological Load. Note: Straight line with one arrowhead denotes positive and direct effect; dashed line with one arrowhead denotes positive but indirect effect.

• 

  Figure 2. Model A: Factor loadings of the structural equation model (SEM) and the two principal components of Lifestyle Risk (LR1, LR2). Physiological Load was demonstrated to be a mediator of Lifestyle Risk to Diabetes Risk. There was also a significant direct path from Lifestyle Risk (LR2) to Diabetes Risk. Only statistically significant sociodemographic covariates (pink boxes) were included in the figure. Note: A straight line with one arrowhead denotes a significant effect; a dashed line with one arrowhead denotes an insignificant effect. Boxes indicate observed variables; hexagons indicate composite variables. Principal Component Aanalysis (PCA) loadings were rounded to 2 decimal places; Pathway load-ings in SEM model were rounded to 3 decimal places.

• 

  Figure 3. Model B: Factor loadings of the structural equation model (SEM) and the two principal components of Lifestyle Risk (LR1, LR2). Physiological Load was demonstrated to be a mediator of Lifestyle Risk (LR2) to Diabetes Risk. Only statistically significant sociodemographic covariates (pink boxes) were included in the figure. Note: A straight line with one arrowhead denotes a significant effect; a dashed line with one arrowhead denotes an insignificant effect. Boxes indicate observed variables; hexagons indicate composite variables. Principal Component Aanalysis (PCA) loadings were rounded to 2 decimal places; Pathway loadings in SEM model were rounded to 3 decimal places.

• 

  Figure 4. Flow charts of the study sampling for Model A (A) and Model B (B). Note: The number of respondents removed based on specific exclusion criteria do not add up to the total number removed, due to respondents who met multiple exclusion criteria.

• 

  Figure 5. Distribution of HbA1c levels (%) among the IFLS5 sample (4000 respondents aged 18 and above). Note: Dashed line indicates the mean at 5.55%. The minimum was 3.50% and the maximum was 14.0%.