The Level of Diabetes Management of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery Workers.
10.5393/JAMCH.2017.42.3.119
- Author:
Gyung Jae OH
1
;
Young Hoon LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Preventive Medicine & Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea. lyh8275@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Behavior;
Diabetes Mellitus;
Disease management;
Farmers
- MeSH:
Adult;
Agriculture*;
Diabetes Mellitus;
Diabetic Nephropathies;
Diabetic Retinopathy;
Disease Management;
Drinking;
Education;
Family Characteristics;
Farmers;
Fisheries*;
Forestry*;
Health Surveys;
Humans;
Logistic Models;
Marital Status;
Mass Screening;
Odds Ratio;
Toothbrushing
- From:Journal of Agricultural Medicine & Community Health
2017;42(3):119-131
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the diabetic management indicators between agriculture, forestry, and fishery workers (AFF) and other occupational adults (non-AFF) in community-dwelling diabetes. METHODS: The study population consisted of 22,127 diabetic population ≥19 years who participated in the 2015 Community Health Survey. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis was used to compare the diabetic management indicators between AFF and non-AFF. Socioeconomic characteristics such as age, gender, education level, monthly household income, National Basic Livelihood Security status, and marital status was sequentially adjusted. RESULTS: Among total diabetic population, 3,712 people (16.8%) was AFF and 18,415 people (83.2%) was non-AFF. The fully-adjusted odds ratio [OR] (95% confidence interval [CI]) of current non-medical treatment (0.72, 0.66–0.79), measurement of hemoglobin A1c (0.61, 0.55–0.67), screening for diabetic retinopathy (0.76, 0.70–0.83), screening for diabetic nephropathy (0.75, 0.70–0.81), non-alcoholic or moderate drinking (0.70, 0.64–0.78), nutrition label reading (0.83, 0.71–0.98), low salt preference (0.85, 0.78–0.93), dental examination (0.60, 0.54–0.66), scaling experience (0.84, 0.77–0.93), regular toothbrushing (0.66, 0.58–0.76), and diabetes management education (0.84, 0.77–0.92) was significantly lower in AFF compared to non-AFF. In contrast, the fully-adjusted OR (95% CI) of AFF's low stress level (1.39, 1.26–1.52) and adequate sleep duration (1.22, 1.13–1.32) was significantly higher than non-AFF, which are better indicators of diabetic management in AFF. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the level of diabetes management of AFF was not as good as that of non-AFF. In order to improve the level of diabetes management of AFF, a delicate diabetes intervention strategy considering the occupational characteristics of AFF will be needed.
