Household Food Insecurity and Cognition in Youth and Young Adults with Youth-Onset Diabetes

Table 2

Association between household food security status and measures of cognitive function among youth and young adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the SEARCH study.

Adjustments	Type 1 diabetes (n = 1,240)			Type 2 diabetes (n = 334)
	Composite fluid cognition	Flanker inhibitory control and attention	Picture vocabulary (crystallized)	Composite fluid cognition	Flanker inhibitory control and attention	Picture vocabulary (crystallized)
Model 1
β^1 a	−2.5	−1.1	−3.4	0.9	1.4	2.4
Se	1.2	0.9	1.1	2.1	1.6	1.6
p Value	0.0406	0.2186	0.0018	0.6688	0.3591	0.1448
Model 2
Adj β^2 b	−1.4	−0.7	−1.7	−0.4	0.6	1.6
Se	1.2	0.9	1.0	2.1	1.6	1.6
p Value	0.2435	0.4323	0.1025	0.8378	0.6920	0.2872
Model 3
Adj β³ ^c	1.2	0.8	0.8	0.5	−0.1	3.2
Se	1.3	1.0	1.1	2.3	1.8	1.7
p Value	0.3277	0.4212	0.4527	0.8168	0.9501	0.6093
Model 4
Adj β^4 d	−0.9	−0.5	−0.9	−1.9	0.3	1.6
Se	1.1	0.9	1.0	1.8	1.5	1.6
p Value	0.4324	0.5878	0.3891	0.3084	0.8640	0.3071
Model 5 ^,
Adj β^5 e	0.9	0.6	1.1	−2.0	−1.7	3.2
Se	1.2	1.0	1.1	2.1	1.7	1.7
p Value	0.4614	0.5321	0.3022	0.3373	0.3213	0.0649

^aNo adjustment, crude model. ^bModel 2 controlled for sex, race and ethnicity, clinic site, duration of diabetes. ^cModel 3 controlled for sex, race and ethnicity, clinic site, duration of diabetes, parent education and household income. ^dModel 4 controlled for sex, race and ethnicity, clinic site, duration of diabetes, glycemic control, crystallized cognition. ^eModel 5 controlled for sex, race and ethnicity, clinic site, duration of diabetes, parent education, household income, glycemic control, and crystallized cognition. Indicates statistical significance of . Due to missing values for household income and parental education, Model 3 and 5 included a sample of 1,123 participants with type 1 diabetes and 270 of those with type 2 diabetes. Models 4 and 5 did not control for crystalized cognition when the outcome of interest was crystallized cognition.