IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245716.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of a diabetes risk score among two populations

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie V Schwatka
  • Derek E Smith
  • Ashley Golden
  • Molly Tran
  • Lee S Newman
  • Donna Cragle

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a practical diabetes risk score amongst two heterogenous populations, a working population and a non-working population. Study population 1 (n = 2,089) participated in a large-scale screening program offered to retired workers to discover previously undetected/incipient chronic illness. Study population 2 (n = 3,293) was part of a Colorado worksite wellness program health risk assessment. We assessed the relationship between a continuous diabetes risk score at baseline and development of diabetes in the future using logistic regression. Receiver operating curves and sensitivity/specificity of the models were calculated. Across both study populations, we observed that participants with diabetes at follow-up had higher diabetes risk scores at baseline than participants who did not have diabetes at follow-up. On average, the odds ratio of developing diabetes in the future was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.26–1.50, p

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie V Schwatka & Derek E Smith & Ashley Golden & Molly Tran & Lee S Newman & Donna Cragle, 2021. "Development and validation of a diabetes risk score among two populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245716
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245716
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245716&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245716?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.