Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 20;26(5):1006–1013. doi: 10.1017/S1368980022001422

Table 2.

Results of multinomial logistic regression analyses of the association between meat consumption and prediabetes or diabetes among community-dwelling adults in rural Khánh Hòa province, Vietnam (2019–2020)

n Prediabetes Diabetes mellitus
n Model 1 Model 2 n Model 1 Model 2
Relative-risk ratios 95 % CI Relative-risk ratios 95 % CI Relative-risk ratios 95 % CI Relative-risk ratios 95 % CI
1. Red/processed meat consumption
  0–99 g 2005 905 1·00 (Ref.) 1·00 (Ref.) 209 1·00 (Ref.) 1·00 (Ref.)
  100–199 g 672 323 1·18 0·98, 1·42 1·25 1·01, 1·54 61 1·01 0·67, 1·53 1·11 0·75, 1·62
  ≥ 200 g 323 173 1·58 1·20, 2·09 1·67 1·20, 2·33 37 1·55 1·14, 2·11 1·80 1·40, 2·32
P trend = 0·002 P trend = 0·004 P trend = 0·124 P trend = 0·006
2. Poultry consumption
  0–99 g 1500 731 1·00 (Ref.) 1·00 (Ref.) 157 1·00 (Ref.) 1·00 (Ref.)
  100–199 g 1130 495 0·84 0·66, 1·07 0·85 0·70, 1·05 118 0·97 0·77, 1·22 1·02 0·79, 1·32
  200–299 g 209 100 0·92 0·70, 1·20 0·92 0·76, 1·11 18 0·84 0·50, 1·41 0·76 0·53, 1·11
  ≥ 300 g 161 75 0·87 0·57, 1·32 0·84 0·57, 1·23 14 0·81 0·36, 1·82 0·71 0·30, 1·69
P trend = 0·283 P trend = 0·179 P trend = 0·506 P trend = 0·399

The results are shown as relative-risk ratios and corresponding 95 % CI.

Model 1 was adjusted for age, age squared term and sex, while model 2 was further adjusted for other socio-demographic variables (education, occupation and household income), lifestyle variables (smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, sleeping hours, fruit consumption, vegetable consumption and sweetened beverage consumption) and health-related variables (BMI, hypertension, dyslipidaemia and family history of diabetes). When the consumption of red/processed meat and poultry was examined, the exposures were simultaneously incorporated into the models.