Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background We comprehensively evaluated the association between husbands’ smoking amount and wives' dysglycemia status. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional study which recruited 12 023 714 reproductive couples who participated in the National Free Pre‐Pregnancy Checkups Project (NFPCP) between 2015 and 2016 in China. Multivariable logistic models were used to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Subgroup analysis and stratified analysis were further performed to investigate potential effect modification. Results Compared to the neither‐smoker group, the multivariable‐adjusted ORs for diabetes mellitus (DM) among women was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.07‐1.10), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.87‐1.23), and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.17‐1.41) in the husband‐smoker, wife‐smoker, and both‐smokers groups, respectively. An increased risk of DM was also observed for women whose husbands smoke 1 to 10 (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04‐1.07), 11 to 20 (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11‐1.15), and over 20 cigarettes per day (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17‐1.31). The prevalence of wives' DM showed significant linear trends with husbands’ smoking amount (Pfor trend < .001). A similar growth tendency was also observed between husband smoking amount and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) prevalence with ORs of 1.04 (95% CI, 1.04‐1.05), 1.05 (95% CI, 1.04‐1.06), and 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06‐1.11) for 1‐10, 11‐20, and over 20 cigarettes per day, respectively. The relationship between husbands’ smoking amount and wives’ IFG/DM prevalence appear to be modified by body mass index (BMI). Conclusions This study shows significant relationships between husbands’ smoking and wives' risk of IFG/DM, and this result exists in both a categorical and dose‐response manner. This association is modified by BMI. Family‐oriented smoking interventions may both reduce husbands’ active smoking and wives’ risk of DM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: