Abstract
Introduction
Prediabetes presents an opportunity for early intervention. Growing evidence suggests that psychological stress may contribute to glucose dysregulation, but the findings are inconsistent.
This study aimed to clarify the association between perceived stress and glycemic measures, by first testing gender as a moderator, and then examining age as a moderator within each gender group.
Research design and methods
We analyzed cross-sectional data from 470 diabetes-free adults in Singapore. Participants completed the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale, comprising two subscales: perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy. Glycemic measures included fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and 2-hour plasma glucose (2h-PG) following an oral glucose tolerance test. Prediabetes was classified according to the American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria.
Results
Multivariable regression analyses revealed significant moderating effects of gender on the relationship between perceived stress factors and both prediabetes status and 2h-PG levels. Specifically, higher perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy were significantly associated with a lower prevalence of prediabetes and lower 2h-PG levels among men. However, these associations were non-significant among women. Age significantly moderated the relationship between perceived helplessness (but not perceived self-efficacy) on prediabetes and 2h-PG levels in women; higher perceived helplessness was associated with a greater prevalence of prediabetes and higher 2h-PG levels among younger women.
Conclusions
Gender moderated the associations between perceived stress and both prediabetes prevalence and 2h-PG levels. Among women, age further moderated the association between perceived helplessness and these outcomes. Future research should consider both moderators. Tailored psychosocial stress management strategies may help reduce the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes.
Trial registration number
Keywords: epidemiology, psychological stress, gender, prediabetic state
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
Emerging evidence suggests that psychological stress may contribute to glucose dysregulation; however, findings are inconsistent, and the influence of demographic factors such as age and gender is unclear.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
By examining perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy as distinct dimensions of perceived stress, this study demonstrates that gender significantly moderates their associations with prediabetes and glycemic measures.
In men, higher levels of both perceived stress factors are associated with lower prediabetes prevalence and lower 2-hour postload glucose levels.
Among women, age further modifies the impact of perceived helplessness: younger women with higher perceived helplessness have a higher prevalence of prediabetes and higher 2-hour postload glucose, associations not observed in older women.
HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY
These findings suggest that considering age and gender in psychosocial stress management strategies could improve prediabetes prevention efforts.
Further research is warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of tailored interventions in reducing prediabetes across demographic groups.
Introduction
Diabetes is one of the leading causes of death and disability, currently affecting an estimated 6.1% of the global population, or approximately 529 million people, and posing a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide.1 One of the primary strategies for addressing the rapidly rising prevalence of diabetes is prevention and early identification to avoid disease progression. Prediabetes, characterized by glycemic levels above normal but below the diagnostic threshold for diabetes, strongly predicts progression to diabetes within 5 years.2 Targeting prediabetes therefore presents a critical opportunity for intervention, particularly through addressing modifiable behavioral and lifestyle risk factors, to reduce the incidence of diabetes.
Several modifiable risk factors of prediabetes have been identified, including diet, physical activity, and smoking.3 A growing body of research suggests that psychological stress may also be a risk factor for dysregulation of glucose metabolism.4 Stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, leading to elevated cortisol levels, which promote energy mobilization through stimulating gluconeogenesis and lipolysis, resulting in increased circulating glucose and lipid levels. Additionally, cortisol impairs peripheral glucose uptake by reducing the translocation of glucose transporter type 4 to the cell membrane in muscle and adipose tissues, thereby contributing to insulin resistance. Over time, these metabolic alterations contribute to glucose dysregulation and insulin resistance, and the development of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus.5
While some studies have demonstrated an association between increased psychological stress—including perceived stress and work-related stress—and the incidence of diabetes,46,10 the findings remain inconsistent.4 Notably, the relationship between stress and glucose metabolism appears to vary by sex, with some studies showing increased stress associated with increased abnormal glucose metabolism and risk of diabetes in women, but not men.11,13 Furthermore, the evidence for a stress-glucose metabolism association in prediabetic or healthy populations is limited and inconclusive.14,17 Understanding how stress affects glucose regulation during this potentially reversible state may offer opportunities to enhance early intervention and prevention strategies. Importantly, age may also play a moderating role in the stress-glucose relationship, particularly among women, as aging is associated with changes in HPA axis reactivity, cortisol regulation, and sex hormone levels.5
Therefore, this study aimed to examine the association between perceived stress and glycemic measures in a diabetes-free population, including individuals with normoglycemia and prediabetes, and to assess whether this relationship is moderated by gender, followed by an examination of age as a moderator within the women and men subgroups, respectively.
Research design and methods
Study design and participants
This study used cross-sectional data collected during the years 2020–2021 from a subset of participants in a broader investigation of diabetes risk factors in a healthy multiethnic population in Singapore, as described elsewhere.18 19 Participants with a history or diagnosis of diabetes—defined as having at least two concurrent test results exceeding the American Diabetes Association (ADA)20 diagnostic cut-offs (ie, 2h-PG ≥11.1 mmol/L, fasting plasma glucose FPG) ≥7.0 mmol/L, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥6.5%)—were excluded. Thus, all our participants either had normoglycemia or prediabetes. Of the 472 participants who initially completed their perceived stress survey, two were excluded due to missing glycemic data for that visit, resulting in a final sample of 470 participants.
Procedures
Participants attended the study visit in the morning after fasting overnight for 10–12 hours. Their body weight and height were measured by trained research staff. Subsequently, fasting blood samples were collected to assess HbA1c and FPG. Next, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) by ingesting a 75 g glucose solution, with additional blood samples collected 2 hours later to evaluate postprandial glucose levels (ie, 2-hour post-OGTT plasma glucose (2h-PG)). On the same day, participants also completed an electronic questionnaire assessing their perceived stress.
Perceived Stress Scale (perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy)
Participants’ perceived stress over the past month was assessed using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)21 22 through self-administered survey questionnaires. The PSS is widely used and demonstrates good validity and reliability across many countries,23 including Singapore.24 25 Example items include: “How often have you felt nervous and stressed?” and “How often have you been able to control irritations in your life?” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1=never to 5=very often.
Several studies have demonstrated that PSS is best represented by a two-factor structure comprising perceived helplessness (ie, general negative responses to stress, six items) and perceived self-efficacy (ie, perceived ability to manage stress-inducing factors, four items).2325,27 Therefore, we conducted a comparative confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the model fit using the recommended thresholds: comparative fit index (CFI) score ≥0.90 and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) score <0.10.28 The CFA supported the two-factor model (CFI=0.96, SRMR=0.05) rather than the one-factor model (CFI=0.58, SRMR=0.19), and a χ2 difference test further confirmed the superior fit of the two-factor model (χ2(1)=873.00, p<0.001). Internal consistency was high for both subscales (perceived helplessness: α=0.88; perceived self-efficacy: α=0.87). Accordingly, we used the average item scores of perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy subscales in subsequent analyses.
Outcomes of glycemic measures and prediabetes
FPG, 2h-PG and HbA1c were assessed using standard methods as previously described.19 Prediabetes status was defined per the ADA criteria,20 as meeting any of the following: (i) 2h-PG: 7.8–11.0 mmol/L, (ii) FPG: 5.6–6.9 mmol/L, and (iii) HbA1c: 5.7%–6.4%.
Covariates and moderator variables
Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (kg/m²), based on in-person physical assessments. Age was computed as the difference between each participant’s birth year and the visit year. Participants self-reported their ethnicity (Chinese, Malay, Indian, or others) and gender (male or female).
Statistical analyses
All analyses were conducted in STATA V.18. Prediabetes status and glycemic measures were regressed on continuous measures of the stress factor of perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy. Logistic regression was applied to categorical outcomes, and ordinary least squares regression was used for continuous outcomes. All models controlled for BMI, ethnicity, age, and gender. To test moderation by gender, interaction terms (gender×perceived helplessness and gender×perceived self-efficacy) were included. Moderation by age was examined by including the interaction terms (age×perceived helplessness and age×perceived self-efficacy) in gender-stratified models.
Results
Participant characteristics
The sample consisted of 470 participants (57% women) with a mean age of 48.7 years (SD=9.9). Our study population was multiethnic, including Chinese (64%), Malay (14%), Indian (17%), and other ethnicities (6%). On average, participants reported a perceived helplessness score of 2.32 (0.70) and a perceived self-efficacy score of 3.45 (0.91). Based on the ADA diagnostic criteria, 51% had normoglycemia and 49% met the criteria for prediabetes (see online supplemental table 1 for details).
Associations between perceived stress factors and glycemic measures
Table 1 presents the main effects of perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy on glycemic measures and prediabetes (models 1–4). Only higher perceived helplessness was significantly associated with lower FPG (model 3; B=−0.07, p=0.040). No other significant associations were observed between the stress factors and glycemic outcomes (all ps>0.05).
Table 1. Associations between perceived stress and glycemic measures (models 1–4) and gender as a moderator (models 5–8).
| All study participants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable predictors | Model 1 Prediabetes |
Model 2 2h-PG |
Model 3 FPG |
Model 4 HbA1c |
| Main effects | ||||
| Perceived helplessness | −0.07 | −0.09 | −0.07* | −0.03 |
| Perceived self-efficacy | −0.12 | −0.18 | −0.02 | 0.00 |
| R2 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.14 | |
| Pseudo-R2 | 0.06 | |||
| F | 6.55*** | 9.23*** | 9.18*** | |
| χ2 | 37.20*** | |||
| Dependent variable predictors | Model 5 Prediabetes |
Model 6 2h-PG |
Model 7 FPG |
Model 8 HbA1c |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interaction terms | ||||
| Perceived helplessness×gender | 0.72* | 0.62* | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| Perceived self-efficacy×gender | 0.44* | 0.50** | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| R2 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.14 | |
| Pseudo-R2 | 0.07 | |||
| F | 6.63*** | 7.45*** | 7.36*** | |
| χ2 | 47.38*** |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 (two-tailed). The table indicates unstandardized regression coefficients. Model 1 or 5 presents the results of logistic regression, whereas models 2–4 or 6–8 present the results of ordinary least squares regression. For brevity, additional independent variables were not reported in models 1–4 (ie, BMI, age, ethnicity, gender) or in models 5–8 (ie, BMI, age, ethnicity, gender, perceived helplessness, and perceived self-efficacy).
BMI, body mass index; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; 2h-PG, 2-hour plasma glucose.
Gender as a moderator of stress-glycemic associations
In table 1, we found that gender significantly moderated the associations between the stress factors (perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy) and both prediabetes status and 2h-PG levels. Significant interaction terms were observed for prediabetes (model 5: perceived helplessness, B=0.72, p=0.014; perceived self-efficacy, B=0.44, p=0.047) and 2h-PG (model 6: perceived helplessness, B=0.62, p=0.016; perceived self-efficacy, B=0.50, p=0.009). No significant moderating effects of gender were observed for FPG or HbA1c.
To further interpret these interactions, we stratified the sample by gender and plotted predicted values at 1 SD above and below the mean of the perceived stress factors, following Aiken and West.29 As shown in figure 1, the direction and strength of the associations between the perceived stress factors and the glycemic measures differed by gender. Moreover, simple slope analyses based on marginal estimated values30 indicated that among men, higher perceived helplessness was significantly associated with a lower prevalence of prediabetes (B=−0.59, p=0.012) and lower 2h-PG levels (B=−0.46, p=0.027). In contrast, these associations were non-significant for women (prediabetes: B=0.25, p=0.181; 2h-PG, B=0.14, p=0.400). Similarly, higher perceived self-efficacy was significantly associated with a lower prevalence of prediabetes (B=−0.36, p=0.037) and lower 2h-PG levels (B=−0.47, p=0.002) for men. However, these associations were not significant for women (prediabetes: B=0.05, p=0.723; 2h-PG, B=0.06, p=0.666). Taken together, these results suggest that both perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy were significantly associated with lower prediabetes prevalence and 2h-PG levels among men, but not among women.
Figure 1. Gender as a moderator for the association between perceived stress and glycemic measures. An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant association (p<0.05). The straight (or dashed) line indicates the strength and direction of the association between perceived helplessness/self-efficacy and a dependent variable for men or women. The steeper slope of the line indicates a more significant association. The figures indicate that higher perceived helpfulness and control were significantly associated with a lower prevalence of prediabetes and lower levels of 2h-PG following OGTT for men, but these associations were non-significant for women. 2h-PG, 2-hour plasma glucose; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test.
Age as a moderator of stress-glycemic associations within gender
We examined the moderating effects of age separately for women and men. The corresponding results are presented in table 2 and online supplemental table 2, respectively. For women (table 2), age significantly moderated the association between perceived helplessness and two glycemic outcomes. Specifically, the interaction between age and perceived helplessness was significant for prediabetes status (model 1: B=−0.04, p=0.030) and 2h-PG levels (model 2: B=−0.06, p<0.001). Moreover, age did not significantly moderate the associations between perceived self-efficacy and all the glycemic outcomes for women (interaction terms all ps>0.05).
Table 2. Age as a moderator of perceived stress-glycemic associations among women.
| Dependent variable predictors |
Model 1 Prediabetes |
Model 2 2h-PG |
Model 3 FPG |
Model 4 HbA1c |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interaction terms | ||||
| Perceived helplessness×age | −0.04* | −0.06*** | −0.01 | 0.00 |
| Perceived self-efficacy×age | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| R2 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.23 | |
| Pseudo-R2 | 0.10 | |||
| F | 3.25*** | 5.24*** | 8.25*** | |
| χ2 | 35.40*** |
*p<0.05, ***p<0.001 (two-tailed). The table indicates unstandardised regression coefficients. Model 1 presents the results of logistic regression whereas models 2–4 present the results of ordinary least squares regression. For brevity, additional independent variables were not reported in models 1–4 (ie, body mass index, ethnicity, perceived helplessness, perceived self-efficacy, and age).
FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; 2h-PG, 2-hour plasma glucose.
Figure 2 illustrates the conditional associations between perceived helplessness and both prediabetes status and 2h-PG levels, using the margins method30 with 95% CIs. These estimates are based on the Johnson-Neyman technique31 and span the full age range of female participants in our sample (32–74 years; see also Piszczek and Pimputkar32). We found that perceived helplessness was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of prediabetes among women aged 32–47 years (ie, all 95% CIs excluded zero or ps<0.05), but this association became non-significant for women aged 48–74 years. Similarly, perceived helplessness was significantly associated with higher 2h OGTT PG levels among women aged 32–46 years (all 95% CIs excluded zero or ps<0.05), was non-significantly associated with 2h-PG levels among women aged 47–61 years, and was significantly associated with lower 2h-PG levels among women aged 62–74 years. Jointly, these results supported that higher perceived helplessness was more associated with a higher prevalence of prediabetes and higher 2h-PG levels for younger women.
Figure 2. Age as a moderator for women. The solid line represents changes in the outcome variables based on a one-unit increase in perceived helplessness across different ages, whereas the two dotted lines indicate the 95% CIs for these effects. When the 95% CIs did not include zero at certain ages, the associations between perceived helplessness and its outcome variables were significant (p<0.05). Thus, specific age ranges were identified where these significant associations occurred. The figures indicate that higher perceived helplessness was significantly associated with higher prediabetes and higher levels of 2h-PG post-OGTT for younger women. Specifically, higher perceived helplessness was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of prediabetes for women aged 32–47 years and higher levels of 2h-PG post-OGTT for women aged 32–46 years. Moreover, higher perceived helplessness was significantly associated with lower levels of 2h-PG post-OGTT for women aged 62–74 years. 2h-PG, 2-hour plasma glucose; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test.
By contrast, age did not significantly moderate the associations between perceived stress factors and glycemic outcomes among men (see online supplemental table 2); all interaction terms involving age were non-significant (all ps>0.05).
Discussion
Understanding the associations between perceived stress and glycemic measures—and how these associations vary by gender and age—is important for developing targeted strategies to prevent the onset and progression of prediabetes. In our study, higher levels of both perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy were associated with a lower prevalence of prediabetes and lower 2h-PG levels among men. A similar pattern was observed among older women, with higher perceived helplessness linked to lower 2h-PG levels. In contrast, among younger women, higher perceived helplessness was associated with a higher prevalence of prediabetes and elevated 2h-PG levels.
Although previous studies have highlighted the negative consequences of perceived helplessness, such as poorer health outcomes,25 online game addiction,33 and heightened anxiety and depression,34 our findings suggest that perceived helplessness is associated with lower prediabetes prevalence and reduced 2h-PG levels. This finding aligns with prior research showing that higher work stress is linked to a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes in men, but not in women.12 A similar pattern emerged among older women (aged 62–74 years), for whom higher perceived helplessness was also associated with lower 2h-PG levels. One possible explanation is that perceived helplessness may prompt greater engagement in adaptive coping behaviors, such as physical activity. Supporting this notion, prior research has found that among older adults, the number of stressors is positively associated with engagement in physical activity.35 Thus, in older individuals, perceived helplessness may act as a motivational cue, regardless of gender, encouraging health-promoting behaviors that help regulate glucose levels.
Our findings contribute to the literature on gender differences in stress-related health outcomes by clarifying how specific stress components interact with age to influence glycemic regulation in women. Previous studies have reported that increased work stress is associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in women but not in men,11 12 with explanations pointing to women’s greater physiological reactivity to stress, such as elevated cortisol levels.12 Extending this work, we found that perceived helplessness, but not perceived self-efficacy, was significantly associated with higher prediabetes prevalence and elevated 2h-PG levels among younger women. This suggests that younger women may be more susceptible to the detrimental effects of perceived helplessness than to the protective effects of perceived self-efficacy. One possible explanation involves hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle, which have been shown to increase stress sensitivity. For instance, stress reactivity intensifies during the luteal phase,36 and younger women exhibit stronger negative responses to a stressful task assignment during the premenstrual phase.37 Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of accounting for both age and the nature of stress perceptions when investigating gender-specific pathways to glycemic dysregulation, and they point to potential boundary conditions for the adverse effects of stress observed in prior research on women’s health.
One explanation for the stronger adverse associations between perceived helplessness and glycemic outcomes among younger women, as shown in our research, is that their stress may be less effectively buffered by social support. Relatedly, previous research has demonstrated a significant association between poor social support and 2h post-OGTT glucose levels among women.38 Although social support was not directly assessed in our study, both gendered roles and life stages are likely to influence access to support networks. In Singapore, cultural norms place a disproportionate caregiving burden on women.39 Younger women may therefore receive inadequate support while simultaneously managing the demands of an early career and caregiving responsibilities, such as childcare and eldercare. By contrast, older women often have more established social networks and have fewer childcare concerns as they age. Consequently, younger women may be more vulnerable to the adverse physiological consequences of stress than men or older women.
We also found significant associations between perceived stress and glycemic outcomes when using prediabetes status and 2h-PG levels as outcome variables, but not when using FPG or HbA1c. These measures capture different aspects of glucose metabolism and may reflect gender differences in metabolic responses to stress. Research indicates that men, under stress, use blood glucose more efficiently than women, achieving a higher glucose influx rate—the rate at which glucose is transported from the bloodstream into cells for energy use.40 This dynamic process is better captured by the 2h-PG, which reflects the body’s capacity to manage a glucose load and how effectively glucose is taken up by peripheral tissues such as muscle. In contrast, FPG and HbA1c reflect more static or chronic aspects of glucose regulation: FPG is influenced by hepatic glucose output and insulin function during fasting, while HbA1c indicates average glucose levels over the past 2–3 months. The OGTT, from which 2h-PG is derived, provides a more sensitive and dynamic assessment of glucose regulation and is particularly useful for detecting prediabetes and predicting type 2 diabetes risk.41 Notably, few psychological stress studies incorporate OGTT due to its time and cost demands, making its inclusion a strength of our study. This is especially relevant in a diabetes-free population, where OGTT can reveal early dysregulation not detectable by FPG or HbA1c, helping to uncover stress-glucose associations that may be overlooked in prior research.
Moreover, our findings suggest that gender-specific interventions incorporating psychosocial strategies and lifestyle modifications for diabetes prevention may be beneficial. Prior research highlights gender differences in stress-related behaviors: men are more likely to engage in physical activity to cope with stress,42 whereas women tend to consume more unhealthy food,43 and poor diet quality is more strongly linked to prediabetes risk in women than in men.44 Future studies could include behavioral measures, such as exercise frequency and unhealthy food intake, to examine how these behaviors mediate the relationship between perceived stress and glycemic regulation, thereby informing more effective interventions.
Our age-specific findings add nuance to the stress-glycemia link. That only perceived helplessness relates to glycemic outcomes in younger women suggests emotional distress may be more influential than self-efficacy in this group. A recent survey found that stress levels have risen, particularly among younger women,45 underscoring the need to target helplessness in stress-reduction efforts. Future research could explore strategies such as reframing distress as a sign of passion.46
Limitations and future research directions
Several limitations of our study point to avenues for future research. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference and may inflate associations due to the temporal proximity of measures. However, we mitigated this concern by using distinct types of measures—self-reported stress as predictors and biological indices as outcomes.47 Future studies could adopt longitudinal designs to clarify the directionality of the observed associations.
Second, participants’ perceived helplessness levels were mostly within the low-to-moderate range on a 5-point scale (1=never, 2=almost never, 3=sometimes; 25th percentile=1.83, median=2.33, 75th percentile=2.83). Prior research suggests that moderate stress may lower blood glucose, whereas extremely high stress may elevate it.48 This may explain the inverse association between perceived helplessness and glycemic measures observed in men. Future research could examine whether moderate and high levels of perceived helplessness differentially affect glycemic outcomes.
Third, we assessed participants’ stress using self-reported ratings, which may be subject to bias. For instance, participants might under-report their stress levels to maintain a positive self-image or to conform to social desirability norms. Our findings may also reflect reference bias,49 in which individuals evaluate the same item against differing implicit standards. For example, males and females may adopt different benchmarks for what qualifies as ‘stressful’, potentially leading to divergent associations between self-reported stress and specific outcome variables. To strengthen validity, future studies could incorporate biological measures of stress (eg, cortisol tests) to examine the replicability of the present findings.
Fourth, our data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and exclusively from a Singaporean sample. Stress and social dynamics were atypical in 2020–2021 owing to lockdowns, remote working, and other pandemic-related disruptions. As such, the present findings might reflect the characteristics of this sample, including its demographic composition, cultural context, and the unique timing of data collection. These factors might have influenced the observed associations between stress and glycemia. To strengthen the generalizability of these results, future research could examine postpandemic populations and include samples from diverse cultural settings.
Finally, our findings underscore the importance of identifying potential mediators linking perceived stress to glycemic regulation. For instance, gender differences in metabolic responses to stress or hormonal fluctuations across phases of the menstrual cycle in women warrant further investigation. Although both perceived helplessness and perceived self-efficacy were associated with lower 2h-PG levels in men, these associations may operate through distinct mechanisms. For example, perceived helplessness might reduce appetite, whereas perceived self-efficacy may promote engagement in physical activity. Future research should examine these behavioral and physiological pathways to clarify how different components of perceived stress influence glucose metabolism.
Conclusion
Our study offers new insights into the relationship between stress and blood glucose by examining specific stress factors, glycemic measures, and the moderating roles of gender and age. The findings suggest that moderate levels of perceived stress may benefit men’s health by reducing the risk of prediabetes and lowering 2h-PG levels. While prior research highlights the adverse effects of stress on women, our results add nuance—showing that such effects, particularly those linked to perceived helplessness, are more pronounced in younger women. Future research should explore age-specific and gender-specific interventions for diabetes and prediabetes prevention. In doing so, it will be important to use longitudinal designs, assess a broader range of stress levels, and examine behavioral and physiological mediators—such as physical activity, dietary patterns, and hormonal responses—to better understand how different components of perceived stress influence glucose regulation across demographic groups.
Supplementary material
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and express our heartfelt thanks to the study participants for their involvement, and to the entire APT-2D and HIYM study team for recruiting participants and conducting the clinical procedures.
Footnotes
Funding: This study was supported by funding from the National Medical Research Council (NMRC) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) Industry Alignment Fund (NMRC/MOHIAFCat1/0048/2016), and by Janssen Pharmaceuticals (USA) to S-AEST, as well as a Ministry of Education Singapore Academic Research Tier 1 grant (A-0002962-00-00) to CEG.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.
Ethics approval: The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013. All procedures involving human subjects were approved by the Domain Specific Review Board of the National Healthcare Group, Singapore (2016/00096 and 2020/00866). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
References
- 1.Ong KL, Stafford LK, McLaughlin SA, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet. 2023;402:203–34. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tabák AG, Herder C, Rathmann W, et al. Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development. The Lancet. 2012;379:2279–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60283-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Nabila S, Kim J-E, Choi J, et al. Associations Between Modifiable Risk Factors and Changes in Glycemic Status Among Individuals With Prediabetes. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:535–43. doi: 10.2337/dc22-1042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hackett RA, Steptoe A. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and psychological stress - a modifiable risk factor. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017;13:547–60. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2017.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gaffey AE, Martinez BS. Oxford research encyclopedia of neuroscience. Oxford University Press; 2019. Neuroendocrine mechanisms of psychological stress: age and sex differences in adults. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Harris ML, Oldmeadow C, Hure A, et al. Stress increases the risk of type 2 diabetes onset in women: A 12-year longitudinal study using causal modelling. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Novak M, Björck L, Giang KW, et al. Perceived stress and incidence of Type 2 diabetes: a 35-year follow-up study of middle-aged Swedish men. Diabet Med. 2013;30:e8–16. doi: 10.1111/dme.12037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Virtanen M, Ferrie JE, Tabak AG, et al. Psychological distress and incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk and low-risk populations: the Whitehall II Cohort Study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2091–7. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bergmann N, Gyntelberg F, Faber J. The appraisal of chronic stress and the development of the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Endocr Connect. 2014;3:R55–80. doi: 10.1530/EC-14-0031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Nyberg ST, Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, et al. Job strain as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of 124,808 men and women. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2268–75. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Norberg M, Stenlund H, Lindahl B, et al. Work stress and low emotional support is associated with increased risk of future type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007;76:368–77. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2006.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Heraclides AM, Chandola T, Witte DR, et al. Work stress, obesity and the risk of type 2 diabetes: gender-specific bidirectional effect in the Whitehall II study. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2012;20:428–33. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Williams ED, Magliano DJ, Tapp RJ, et al. Psychosocial stress predicts abnormal glucose metabolism: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46:62–72. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9473-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kusnanto K, Rohmah FA, Wahyudi AS, et al. Mental workload and stress with blood glucose level: A correlational study among lecturers who are structural officers at the university. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy. 2020;11:253–7. https://www.academia.edu/download/79561631/mental-workload-and-stress-with-blood-glucose-level-a-correlational-study-among-lecturers-who-are-structural-officers-at.pdf Available. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sancini A, Ricci S, Tomei F, et al. Work related stress and blood glucose levels. Ann Ig . 2017;29:123–33. doi: 10.7416/ai.2017.2139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.O’Keefe LC, Brown KC, Frith KH, et al. Obesity, Prediabetes, and Perceived Stress in Municipal Workers. Workplace Health Saf . 2016;64:453–61. doi: 10.1177/2165079916632771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Husmarini N, Istiono W, Wirasto RT. Stress Level Relationship with Prediabetes Events in Sleman Yogyakarta. Rpcpe. 2019;2:76. doi: 10.22146/rpcpe.33981. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lee MH, Febriana E, Lim M, et al. Asian females without diabetes are protected from obesity-related dysregulation of glucose metabolism compared with males. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2023;31:2304–14. doi: 10.1002/oby.23833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Magkos F, Lee MH, Lim M, et al. Dynamic assessment of insulin secretion and insulin resistance in Asians with prediabetes. Metab Clin Exp. 2022;128:154957. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2021.154957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.American Diabetes Association 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:S73–84. doi: 10.2337/dc21-S006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Cohen S. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. 1988
- 22.Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24:385–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lee E-H. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2012;6:121–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lee ES, Tan SY, Lee PSS, et al. Perceived stress and associated factors among healthcare workers in a primary healthcare setting: the Psychological Readiness and Occupational Training Enhancement during COVID-19 Time (PROTECT) study. Singapore Med J. 2022;63:20–7. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2020163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Teh HC, Archer JA, Chang W, et al. Mental well-being mediates the relationship between perceived stress and perceived health. Stress Health. 2015;31:71–7. doi: 10.1002/smi.2510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Taylor JM. Psychometric analysis of the Ten-Item Perceived Stress Scale. Psychol Assess. 2015;27:90–101. doi: 10.1037/a0038100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Roberti JW, Harrington LN, Storch EA. Further Psychometric Support for the 10‐Item Version of the Perceived Stress Scale. J of College Counseling. 2006;9:135–47. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. MyiLibrary, editor. New York: Guilford Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Williams R. Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata. 2012;12:308–31. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1201200209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Johnson PO, Neyman J. Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs. 1936 [Google Scholar]
- 32.Piszczek MM, Pimputkar AS. Flexible schedules across working lives: Age-specific effects on well-being and work. J Appl Psychol. 2021;106:1907–20. doi: 10.1037/apl0000844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Che D, Hu J, Zhen S, et al. Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence and Online Gaming Addiction in Adolescence: The Indirect Effects of Two Facets of Perceived Stress. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1206. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kaya C, Tansey TN, Melekoglu M, et al. Psychometric evaluation of Turkish version of the Perceived Stress Scale with Turkish college students. J Ment Health . 2019;28:161–7. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2017.1417566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Leger KA, Charles ST, Brown CJ, et al. Physical Activity and Daily Stress Processes in Older Adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology. 2023;78:20–9. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbac113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Gordon JL, Girdler SS. Mechanisms underlying hemodynamic and neuroendocrine stress reactivity at different phases of the menstrual cycle. Psychophysiology. 2014;51:309–18. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ossewaarde L, van Wingen GA, Rijpkema M, et al. Menstrual cycle-related changes in amygdala morphology are associated with changes in stress sensitivity. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013;34:1187–93. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kosinski M. Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121:e2405460121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2405460121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Teo Y. Education as care labor: Expanding our lens on the work-life balance problem. Current Sociology. 2023;71:1312–29. doi: 10.1177/00113921211072577. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Horton TJ, Grunwald GK, Lavely J, et al. Glucose kinetics differ between women and men, during and after exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2006;100:1883–94. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01431.2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Jagannathan R, Neves JS, Dorcely B, et al. The Oral Glucose Tolerance Test: 100 Years Later. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:3787–805. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S246062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ivanović M, Ivanović U. Gender differences during adolescence in the motives for physical exercise, depression, anxiety and stress. EQOL . 2018;10:17–27. doi: 10.31382/eqol.180602. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kim J-G, Lee J, Song K. Relationship between sweet food intake and stress among college students in Seoul and Gyeonggi areas. J Nutr Health . 2021;54:373. doi: 10.4163/jnh.2021.54.4.373. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Siddiqui A, Madhu SV, Sharma SB, et al. Endocrine stress responses and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Stress. 2015;18:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Fioroni S, Foy D. Americans sleeping less, more stressed: Gallup. 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/642704/americans-sleeping-less-stressed.aspx Available.
- 46.Wolf EB, Lee JJ, Sah S, et al. Managing perceptions of distress at work: Reframing emotion as passion. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2016;137:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.07.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Edwards C, Yates AJ. The effects of cognitive task demand on subjective stress and blood glucose levels in diabetics and non-diabetics. J Psychosom Res. 1985;29:59–69. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(85)90009-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Lira B, O’Brien JM, Peña PA, et al. Large studies reveal how reference bias limits policy applications of self-report measures. Sci Rep. 2022;12:19189. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23373-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data are available on reasonable request.


