Of the 317 men included for analyses, 139 were classified as experiencing current poor psychiatric well-being.
As expected from their lack of T2DM at examination 7, men eligible for analyses of T2DM incidence were slightly younger than the overall cross-sectional sample.
Of the initial study group of 313 men, 5 were excluded: 1 because of abuse of anabolic steroids, 2 because of missing blood samples, and 2 because of missing questionnaire information, leaving 308 men eligible for analyses.
This left a total of 16 subjects (8 men) for all analyses.
A total number of 287 patients (149 women and 138 men) were used for analyses, of which 82 were unique compared to the previous study [ 17].
Cases with prevalent cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer were excluded from the subcohort, which left 3346 men and women for analyses.
One might hypothesise therefore that price-related motivations and perceptions could provide a double-hit with regard to SES differences in fruit consumption for men, but analyses did not find value for money ratings mediating this relationship for men.
First, men and women eligible for analyses differed in several non-genetic (and potentially confounding) features (Table 1), which mandates the application of multivariable models and sensitivity analyses.
For men, survival analyses using re-sampling techniques maintained clear separation into quartiles of social vulnerability, suggesting that for men the specific variables included in the index are not as important as the overall impression of vulnerability.
Overall, there were 2,498 participants (1,211 men and 1,287 women) available for analyses.
