Hd. Chen et al., PREVALENCE OF DIABETES-MELLITUS AND IMPAIRED GLUCOSE-TOLERANCE IN ABORIGINES AND CHINESE IN EASTERN TAIWAN, Diabetes research and clinical practice, 38(3), 1997, pp. 199-205
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of diabetes mell
itus and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in three different ethnic gr
oups in eastern Taiwan. The study was performed among Han Chinese, abo
riginal Ami and aboriginal Atayal in six rural villages. Inhabitants a
ged 40 years and over were invited to participate. A 75-g oral glucose
tolerance test (OGTT) was used as suggested by the World Health Organ
ization (WHO) for population screening purposes. WHO criteria were use
d for determining the results. A total of 1013 adults (460 men and 553
women) were examined with a response rate of 62.1%. There were no sig
nificant differences in sex, age and history of diabetes between respo
nders and non-responders. The age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes was
11.0% (9.8% in men and 12.3% in women) in the Chinese, 9.1% (12.1% in
men and 7.4% in women) in the Amis, 10.8% (11.5% in men and 9.4% in wo
men) in the Atayal and 9.9% (11.5% in men and 8.5% in women) for the t
wo aboriginal groups together. Although sex differences in prevalence
of diabetes were not statistically significant, it seems that diabetes
was slightly more prevalent in Chinese women than in Chinese men (12.
3 versus 9.8%). Nonetheless, the prevalence rate of diabetes was somew
hat higher in the aboriginal males than in the aboriginal females (12.
1 versus 9.8% for Ami and 11.5 versus 10.7% for Atayal). The prevalenc
e of IGT was 7.2, 8.5, 10.8 and 9.7% for the Chinese, Amis, Atayal and
the two aboriginal groups, respectively. There were no substantial di
fferences in the prevalence of diabetes and IGT among these three ethn
ic groups. Environment, rather than ethnicity, was more likely the pre
dominant factor. It was found that the prevalence of diabetes in this
study was about twice as high as that reported in a 1987 survey in Tai
wan. The discrepancy may be due to different screening methods and ass
essment periods. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.