Table 3.
Prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in parents participated in the second-stage screening
| I | II | III | IVParticipants as presented in column III, stratified by FINDRISC category | P-value* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants identified with prediabetes, n (%) | Participants identified with diabetes, n (%) | Participants for whom diabetes was previously undetected among those identified with diabetes in column II, n (%)** | |||||
| 0–11 | 12–14 | 15–26 | |||||
| All countries (n = 2685) | 623 (23.2) | 81 (3.0) | 40 (53.5) | 13 (81.3)a | 13 (64.7) | 14 (36.8)a | 0.007 |
| HICs under austerity measures (n = 1249) | 304 (24.3) | 36 (2.9) | 15 (40.0) | 4 (57.1) | 5 (66.7) | 6 (27.3) | 0.127 |
| LMICs (n = 644) | 84 (13.1) | 26 (4.0) | 21 (80.0) | 8 (100.0) | 7 (85.7) | 6 (60.0) | 0.098 |
| HICs (n = 792) | 235 (29.6) | 19 (2.4) | 4 (36.4) | 1 (100.0) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (33.3) | 0.368 |
*P-values indicate the significance of the differences among FINDRISC categories
Figures sharing the same superscript letters differentiate significantly from each other
** The numbers provided for this variable in the case of HICs do not include data from Finland (n = 7), since participants with previously diagnosed diabetes were excluded from the study at this study center
FINDRISC Finnish Diabetes Risk Score, HICs High-income countries, LMICs Low to middle-income countries