Table 3. Odds ratios and 95% CI estimating the association between food security level and diabetes by sex and race. CHIS, 2009 and 2011 (N=22,596).

	Women			Men
	White	Black	Latina	White	Black	Latino
	n=7273	n=1011	n=6307	n=3719	n=475	n=3811
Model 1a
Food security level
Secure	1	1	1	1	1	1
Low food security	.8 (.6-1.1)	1.4 (.8-2.5)	1.6 (1.2-2.0) d	1.1 (.7-1.8)	2.3 (.9-5.6)	1.5 (.9-2.5)
Very low food security	1.0 (.6-1.5)	1.2 (.6-2.3)	1.7 (1.2-2.4) d	.5 (.3-.7) d	.2 (.02-1.6)	2.0 (1.3-3.1)
Model 2b
Food security level
Secure	1	1	1	1	1	1
Low food security	1.2 (.8-1.6)	1.2 (.7-2.2)	1.8 (1.4-2.4) d	1.9 (1.2-3.1) d	1.6 (.5-5.9)	1.3 (.8-2.0)
Very low food security	1.7 (1.1-2.6) d	1.5 (.7-3.2)	1.8 (1.3-2.7) d	.8 (.4-1.5)	.1 (.02-1.0)	1.6 (.9-2.6)
Model 3c
Food security level
Secure	1	1	1	1	1	1
Low food security	1.1 (.8-1.4)	1.2 (.6-2.1)	1.8 (1.3-2.3) d	1.8 (1.1-2.8) d	2.0 (.5-6.8)	1.3 (.8-2.0)
Very low food security	1.6 (1.1-2.4)d	1.4 (.7-2.9)	1.8 (1.2-2.6) d	.8 (.4-1.5)	.2 (.02-1.4)	1.6 (.9-2.6)

a. Model 1 is unadjusted.

b. Model 2 is adjusted for education, work status, marital status, currently insured, foreign born, doctor’s visits in past year, and poverty level.

c. Model 3 additionally adjusted for BMI.

d. Significant.