Table 2 Sociodemographic factors and glycaemic control in sub-Saharan Africa
First author name | Year | Study design | Study setting | Study population | Sample size | Measurement of glycemic control | Definition of glycaemic control | Generic factor | Specific factors | Measure of association | Point estimate | Lower bound | Upper bound | Association with glycemic control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BeLue [27] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Senegal | Type 2 diabetes | 106 | HbA1c | Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) | Age | Increasing age | ß coefficient | − 0.06 | − 0.08 | − 0.04 | No significant association between age and glycaemic control |
Botchway [31] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 254 | HbA1c | No threshold | ß coefficient | − 0.05 | − 0.07 | − 0.03 | Significant negative association between age and HbA1c | ||
Demoz [34] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 357 | FBG | Adequate control (average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%) | Odds Ratio | 1.57 | 1.11 | 2.31 | Age was not a predictor significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||
Mobula [58] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Hypertensive and Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 1226 | HbA1c | Poor control (HBA1c ≥ 7%) | Odds Ratio | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.98 | Increasing age had significant association with good glycaemic control | ||
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | ß coefficient | − 0.065 | − 0.80 | − 0.050 | Increasing age in years showed a negative significant association with HbA1c | ||
Anioke [22] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Nigeria | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 30 years | 140 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Age ≥ 65 years | Odds Ratio | 5.00 | 1.19 | 20.96 | Being an elderly was five times more likely to show poor glycaemia than non-elderly | |
Osuji [68] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Nigeria | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 316 | HbA1c | Good (HbA1c < 7%); poor (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Odds Ratio | 0.538 | 0.111 | 2.607 | No significant association between glycaemic control and age group ≥ 65 years | ||
0.375 | 0.075 | 1.875 | No significant association between glycaemic control and age group 45–64 yrs | |||||||||||
Otieno [69] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 30 years | 220 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor/suboptimal (HbA1c > 7%) | Odds Ratio | 0.9 | 0.3 | 3.6 | No influence of age ≥ 65 years in determining glycaemic control in patients with depression | ||
1.5 | 0.6 | 3.6 | No influence of age ≥ 65 years in determining glycaemic control in patients without depression | |||||||||||
Biru [29] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 322 | FBG | Good control (FBG ≤ 110 mg/dL) | 41–50 years | Odds Ratio | 2.82 | 0.62 | 12.74 | Age 41–50 years was not associated significantly associated with glycaemic control | |
51–60 years | 3.22 | 0.76 | 13.70 | Age 51–60 years was not associated significantly associated with glycaemic control | ||||||||||
61–70 years | 8.32 | 1.76 | 39.35 | Age 61–70 years was associated with good glycaemic control | ||||||||||
 ≥ 71 years | 31.30 | 4.07 | 240.90 | Age ≥ 71 years was associated with good glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Woldu [83] | 2014 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes | 102 | FBG | Poor glycaemic control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl) | 41–50 years | Odds Ratio | 0.01 | 0.000 | 1.1144 | Being in the age group 41–50 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
51–60 years | 0.01 | 0.000 | 0.749 | Being in the age group 51–60 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
61–70 years | 0.01 | 0.000 | 0.395 | Being in the age group 61–70 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
 ≥ 71 years | 0.1 | 0.002 | 5.794 | Being in the age group > 71 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Camara [32] | 2014 | Cross-sectional | Cameroon and Guinea | Type 2 diabetes mellitus; ≥ 16 years | 1267 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1C < 7.0% or < 53 mmol/mol) | Age ˂ 65 years | Odds Ratio | 1.39 | 1.19 | 20.96 | Age of less than 65 years was signifcantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
Eticha [36] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 384 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | ˂ 50 years | Odds Ratio | 3.0 | 1.2 | 7.4 | Age of less than 50 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
50–59 years | 4.7 | 2.0 | 11.0 | Age between 50 and 59 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Fekadu [39] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; 18–86 years | 228 | FBG | Good control (FBG: 70–130 mg/dL); poor control (< 70 mg/dL and > 130 mg/dL) |  < 21 years | Odds Ratio | 1.32 | 0.09 | 38.04 | No significant association between age < 21 years and glycaemic control | |
21–40 years | 1.21 | 0.03 | 1.49 | No significant association between age 21–40 years and glycaemic control | ||||||||||
41–60 years | 2.01 | 0.04 | 0.06 | Significant association between age 41–60 years and poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Kimando [51] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes without overt complications;  ≥ 30 years | 385 | HbA1c | Sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7.0%) | ˃ 50 years | Odds Ratio | 0.8 | 0.4 | 1.5 | Being aged more than 50 years was not significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
Mwita [65] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Botswana | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 500 | HbA1c | Optimal glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%) |  ≤ 50 years | Odds Ratio | 5.79 | 1.08 | 31.14 | Age equal or less than 50 years was significantly associated with optimal glycaemic control | |
Rwegerera [73] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Botswana | Type 2 diabetes | 368 | HbA1c | desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%) | 36–50 years | Odds Ratio | 2.03 | 0.3 | 13.69 | This age group was not significantly associated with glycaemic control | |
51–65 years | 4.32 | 0.63 | 29.8 | This age group was not associated with desirable glycaemic control but significantly associated with suboptimal glycaemic control | ||||||||||
 ≥ 66 years | 11.7 | 1.4 | 97.69 | This age group was also significantly associated with both desirable and suboptimal glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Shimels [75] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 361 | FPG | glycemic control (FPG: 100–130 mg/dl) | 46–60 years | Odds Ratio | 0.66 | 0.37 | 1.18 | No significant association between age of 46–60 years with glycaemic control | |
˃ 60 years | 0.74 | 0.36 | 1.52 | No significant association between age of more than 60 years with glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Tefera [77] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 400 | FPG | Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl) | ˂ 40 years | Odds Ratio | 6.23 | 1.99 | 9.11 | Being of age less than 40 years was significantly associated with reaching glycaemic target | |
40–60 years | 2.52 | 0.47 | 3.61 | No significant association has been found with 40–60 years age group age | ||||||||||
Tekalegn [78] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 15 years | 422 | FBG | Good control (average FBG:70–130 mg/dL); poor control (average FBG > 130 or < 70 mg/dL) | 40–49 years | Odds Ratio | 2.14 | 0.74 | 6.2 | No significant association between gycaemic control and age group 40–49 years | |
50–59 years | 2.46 | 0.91 | 6.63 | No significant association between glycaemia control and age group 50–59 years | ||||||||||
 ≥ 60 years | 1.02 | 0.37 | 2.78 | No significant association between glycaemic control and age ≥ 60 years | ||||||||||
Yimam [86] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes with hypertension; ≥ 18 years | 300 | FBG | Good control (mean FBG:80–130 mg/dl); poor control (FBG < 80 mg/dl or > 130 mg/dl) | 41–60 years | Odds Ratio | 3.05 | 1.20 | 7.77 | Age 41–60 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
˃ 60 years | 2.62 | 1.01 | 6.80 | Age more than 60 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Abera [88] | 2022 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes | 325 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | 18–44 years | Odds Ratio | 1.63 | 0.66 | 4.18 | Significant association between age groups of 45–54 years and ≥ 65 years and poor glycaemic control | |
45–54 years | 2.46 | 1.28 | 6.01 | |||||||||||
 ≥ 65 years | 1.97 | 1.3 | 5.97 | |||||||||||
Abebe [89] | 2022 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; > 18 years | 138 | FBG | Good control (mean FBG:80–130 mg/dl); poor control (FBG < 80 mg/dl or > 130 mg/dl) |  ≥ 60 years | Odds Ratio | 0.4 | 0.16 | 1.008 | No significant relationship between age ≥ 60 years and glycaemic control | |
Adeniyi [18] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | South Africa | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 30 years at diagnostic of DM | 327 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor control (HbA1c > 7%); moderately poor (HbA1c = 7–8.9%); critically poor (HbA1c ≥ 9%) | Gender | Female gender | Odds Ratio | 3.4 | 1.5 | 7.7 | Female gender was a significant determinant of uncontrolled diabetes |
Demoz [34] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 357 | HbA1c and FBG | Adequate control ( average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%) | Odds Ratio | 1.59 | 1.20 | 2.38 | Being Female was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||
Biru [29] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 322 | FBG | Good control (FBG ≤ 110 mg/dL) | Odds Ratio | 3.47 | 1.22 | 9.91 | Female gender was significanty associated with good glycaemic control | ||
Kimando [51] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes without overt complications; ≥ 30 years | 385 | HbA1c | Sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7.0%) | Odds Ratio | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.6 | No significant association between Female gender and glycaemic control | ||
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | ß coefficient |  − 0.197 | − 0.492 | 0.098 | Female gender has no significant correlation with glycaemic control | ||
Mwavua [64] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 200 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Odds Ratio | 1.0 | 0.4 | 2.4 | Female gender had no significant correlation with glycaemic control | ||
Mwita [65] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Botswana | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 500 | HbA1c | Optimal glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%) | Odds Ratio | 0.42 | 0.14 | 1.25 | Female gender had no correlation with glycaemic control | ||
Rwegerera [73] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Botswana | Type 2 diabetes | 368 | HbA1c | desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%) | Odds Ratio | 1.91 | 1.09 | 3.36 | Female gender was significantly associated with good glycaemic control | ||
BeLue [27] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Senegal | Type 2 diabetes | 106 | HbA1c | Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) | Male gender | ß coefficient | 1.5 | 0.86 | 2.14 | Male gender was significantly positive association with poor glycaemic control | |
Shimels [75] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 361 | FPG | Glycemic control (FPG: 100–130 mg/dl) | Odds Ratio | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.53 | Male gender was significantly associated with good glycaemic control | ||
Mobula [58] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | hypertensive and Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 1226 | HbA1c | Poor control (HBA1c ≥ 7%) | Odds Ratio | 0.66 | 0.49 | 0.88 | Male gender was significantly associated with good glycaemic control | ||
Botchway [31] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 254 | HbA1c | No threshold | ß coefficient | '− 0.30 | − 0.68 | − 0.08 | Male gender had no significant correlation with glycaemic control | ||
Fekadu [39] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; 18–86 years | 228 | FBG | Good control (FBG: 70–130 mg/dL); poor control (< 70 mg/dL and > 130 mg/dL) | Odds Ratio | 0.32 | 1.63 | 20.19 | Male gender had no significant association with glycaemic control | ||
Id [44] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;, > 18 years | 394 | FBS | Good blood glucose control (< 154 mg/dl); poor blood glucose control (≥ 154 mg/dl) | Odds Ratio | 1.41 | 0.89 | 2.2 | Male sex had no significant association with glycaemic control | ||
Noor [66] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Sudan | Type 2 diabetes | 387 | HbA1c | Controlled < 7% Uncontrolled > 7% | Odds Ratio | 1.250 | 0.491 | 3.179 | Male sex had no significant association with glycaemic control | ||
Tefera [77] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 400 | FPG | Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl) | Odds Ratio | 1.71 | 0.87 | 3.37 | Male gender had no association with glycaemic control | ||
Woldu [83] | 2014 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes | 102 | FBG | Poor glycaemic control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl) | Odds Ratio | 0.3 | 0.051 | 1.718 | No association between male gender and glycaemic control | ||
Yigazu [85] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; 18–80 years | 174 | FBG | Controlled (average FBG: 80–130 mg/dL); Uncontrolled (average FBG > 130 or < 70 mg/dL) | Odds Ratio | 1.58 | 0.79 | 3.15 | No association between male gender and glycaemic control | ||
Yosef [87] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 245 | FBG | Good control (FBG:70–130 mg/dL) | Odds Ratio | 2.28 | 1.24 | 4.21 | Male gender was associated with poor glycaemic control | ||
Adeniyi [18] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | South Africa | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 30 years at diagnostic of diabetes | 327 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor control (HbA1c > 7%); moderately poor (HbA1c = 7–8.9%); critically poor (HbA1c ≥ 9%) | Income | Individual monthly income | Odds Ratio | 2.9 | 1.3 | 6.5 | Lower monthly income was associated with poor glycaemic control |
Ayele [25] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; > 18 years | 275 | FBG | Good control (FBG level between 70 and 130 mg/dL); poor control (FBG greater than 130 or less than 70 mg/ dL) | Odds Ratio | 1.724 | 0.719 | 4.131 | No association found between monthly income in ETB ≥ 2500 and glycaemic control | ||
0.755 | 0.271 | 2.102 | No association found between monthly income in ETB 1500–2500 and glycaemic control | |||||||||||
Yosef [87] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 245 | FBG | Good control (FBG:70–130 mg/dL) | Odds Ratio | 2.14 | 1.17 | 3.91 | Significant association between a monthly income of less than 136 american dollars and poor glycaemic control | ||
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | Household Income | ß coefficient | 0.087 | − 0.157 | 0.331 | No association found between household income level (≥ 30,000.34 MWK) and glycaemic control | |
BeLue [27] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Senegal | Type 2 diabetes | 106 | HbA1c | Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) | Marital status | Unmarried | ß coefficient | − 0.108 | − 0.778 | 0.562 | Being unmarried had no significant correlation with glycaemic control |
Demoz [34] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 357 | HbA1c and FBG | Adequate control ( average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%) | Odds Ratio | 0.93 | 0.81 | 1.35 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being never married | ||
Ayele [25] | 2019 | Case–control | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control (cases) and without good glycemic control (controls); > 18 years | 410 | FBG | Good control (average fasting blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL); poor control (average fasting blood glucose of > 130 mg/dL) | Single/ divorced /widowed | Odds Ratio | 1.80 | 0.68 | 4.72 | Being single/divorced/widowed had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Mashele [56] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | South Africa | Type 2 diabetes; 35–74 years | 176 | HbA1c | Optimal control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Marital status | Odds Ratio | 1.006 | 0.962 | 1.051 | Marital status had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | Married | ß coefficient | − 0.119 | − 0.427 | 0.189 | Being married had no significant correlation with glycaemic control | |
Kimando [51] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes without overt complications; ≥ 30 years | 385 | HbA1c | Sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7.0%) | Separated | Odds Ratio | 1.4 | 0.1 | 15.3 | No significant relationship between glycaemic control and being separated | |
Unmarried | 1.8 | 0.7 | 4.8 | No significant relationship between glycaemic control and being single or unmarried | ||||||||||
Widowed | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | No significant relationship between glycaemic control and being a widowed | ||||||||||
Rwegerera [73] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Botswana | Type 2 diabetes | 368 | HbA1c | desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%) | Single/ Separated /Widowed | Odds Ratio | 1.41 | 0.69 | 2.89 | Being single/separated/widowed had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Ayele [25] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; > 18 years | 275 | FBG | Good control (FBG level between 70 and 130 mg/dL); Poor control (FBG greater than 130 or less than 70 mg/ dL) | Place of residence | Rural | Odds Ratio | 1.403 | 0.442 | 4.454 | No significant association found between rural residency and glycaemic control |
Ayele [25] | 2019 | Case–control | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control (cases) and without good glycemic control (controls); > 18 years | 410 | FBG | Good control (average fasting blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL); poor control (average fasting blood glucose of > 130 mg/dL) | Odds Ratio | 0.66 | 0.24 | 1.85 | Rural residency had no significant association with glycaemic control | ||
Woldu [83] | 2014 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes | 102 | FBG | Poor control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl) | Odds Ratio | 0.5 | 0.106 | 1.986 | Residing in rural area had no significant association with glycaemic control | ||
Kefale [49] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 169 | FBS | Glycemic control (FBS ≤ 130 mg/dl in all these most three recent measurements) | Urban | Odds Ratio | 2.5 | 1.1 | 5.7 | Urban residency was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
Tefera [77] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 400 | FPG | Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl) | Odds Ratio | 0.72 | 0.27 | 1.93 | Residing in urban area was not significantly associated with glycaemic control | ||
Mobula [58] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | hypertensive and Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 1226 | HbA1c | Poor control (HBA1c ≥ 7%) | Urban | Odds Ratio | 1.09 | 0.74 | 1.60 | Residing in urban area had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Semi-urban | 0.88 | 0.57 | 1.38 | Residing in semi-urban area had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | Semi-urban | ß coefficient | − 0.172 | − 0.446 | 0.102 | Residing in semi-urban area had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Ayele [25] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; > 18 years | 275 | FBG | Good control (FBG level between 70 and 130 mg/dL); Poor control (FBG greater than 130 or less than 70 mg/ dL) | Employment | Farmer | Odds Ratio | 0.279 | 0.098 | 0.797 | Being farmer was inversely associated with good glycaemic control |
Unemployed | 1.268 | 0.354 | 4.549 | No significant association was found between glycaemic control with unemployed | ||||||||||
NGO employed | 4.059 | 0.775 | 21.253 | No significant association was found between glycaemic control with NGO employed | ||||||||||
Merchant | 0.322 | 0.102 | 1.107 | No significant association was found between glycaemic ccontrol with merchant | ||||||||||
BeLue [25] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Senegal | Type 2 diabetes | 106 | HbA1c | Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) | Employed | ß coefficient | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.13 | No significant association found between being employed and glycaemic control | |
Kassahun [48] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 309 | FBG | Poor control (mean FBG > 130 mg/dl) | Farmer | Odds Ratio | 2.47 | 1.13 | 5.39 | Being farmer has been found significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
Employed | 2.65 | 0.96 | 7.24 | Significant association between poor glycaemic control with employed | ||||||||||
Merchant | 2.69 | 0.86 | 8.37 | No significant association between glycaemic control with merchant | ||||||||||
Daily labor | 2.22 | 0.80 | 6.11 | No significant association between glycaemic control with daily labor | ||||||||||
Kimando [51] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes without overt complications; ≥ 30 years | 385 | HbA1c | Sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7.0%) | Employed | Odds Ratio | 0.9 | 0.4 | 2.3 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being employed | |
Self-employed | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1.4 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being self-employed | ||||||||||
Retired | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1.6 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being retired | ||||||||||
BeLue [27] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Senegal | Type 2 diabetes | 106 | HbA1c | Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) | Education level | No formal education | ß coefficient | 0.11 | − 0.44 | 0.66 | Being of no education class was not significantly associated with glycaemic control |
Biru [29] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 322 | FBG | Good control (FBG ≤ 110 mg/dL) | Primary level | Odds Ratio | 13.66 | 2.94 | 63.55 | Being of primary level of education was significantly associated with good glycaemic control | |
Secondary level | 20.09 | 3.80 | 106.14 | Being of secondary level of education was significantly associated with good glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Higher education | 20.72 | 3.78 | 113.51 | Being of higher education was associated with good glycaemic level | ||||||||||
Botchway [31] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 254 | HbA1c | No threshold | Junior secondary level | ß coefficient | − 0.21 | − 0.62 | 0.20 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having completed junior secondary school | |
Senior secondary level or higher education | 0.33 | − 0.14 | 0.80 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having completed senior secondary school or higher education | ||||||||||
Demoz [34] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 357 | HbA1c and FBG | Adequate control (average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%) | No formal education | Odds Ratio | 1.59 | 0.37 | 1.09 | No significant association between glycaemic control and no formal education | |
Primary level | 2.10 | 0.75 | 1.77 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having primary level of education | ||||||||||
Secondary level | 1.11 | 0.55 | 1.31 | No significant association between glycaemic control with secondary level of education | ||||||||||
Fekadu [39] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; 18–86 years | 228 | FBG | Good control (FBG: 70–130 mg/dL); poor control (< 70 mg/dL and > 130 mg/dL) | Unable to read and write/illiterate | Odds Ratio | 3.12 | 1.52 | 8.50 | Being unable to read and write/illiterate was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
No formal education | 2.28 | 2.14 | 32.60 | Having informal education was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Primary level | 1.03 | 0.64 | 2.14 | Being of primary education was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Secondary level | 1.04 | 0.26 | 17.48 | Being of secondary level of education was not significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Fseha [40] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; 22–60 years | 200 | FBS | Good (FBS 70–130 mg/dl), poor (FBS > 130 mg/dl) | Formal education | Odds Ratio | 1.054 | 0.492 | 2.261 | Having had formal education was not significantly associated with glycaemic control | |
Kassahun [48] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 309 | FBG | Poor control (mean FBG > 130 mg/dl) | Illiterate | Odds Ratio | 3.45 | 1.01 | 11.91 | Being illiterate has been found significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | |
Able to read and write | 0.81 | 0.20 | 3.26 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being able to read and write | ||||||||||
Primary level | 2.45 | 0.85 | 7.03 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having reached 1–8 years of education | ||||||||||
Secondary level | 1.97 | 0.69 | 5.55 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having reachd 9–12 years of eductaion | ||||||||||
Kimando [51] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes without overt complications; ≥ 30 years | 385 | HbA1c | Sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7.0%) | No education | Odds Ratio | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.9 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being illiterate | |
Secondary level | 1.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having a secondary level of education | ||||||||||
Tertiairy level | 0.9 | 0.3 | 2.8 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being of tertiary level | ||||||||||
Mashele [56] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | South Africa | Type 2 diabetes; 35–74 years | 176 | HbA1c | Optimal control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Level of education | Odds Ratio | 1.014 | 0.985 | 1.045 | The level of education had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | Secondary level and above | ß coefficient | − 0.300 | − 0.576 | − 0.024 | Being of secondary and above level of education had no significant association with glycaemic control | |
Mwavua [64] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Kenya | Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years | 200 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | primary level and above | Odds Ratio | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1.8 | Having highest level of education below primary had no significant relationship with glycaemic control | |
Omar [65] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Sudan | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 339 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Less or equal to secondary level | Odds Ratio | 1.35 | 0.76 | 2.242 | Being of an education less or equal to secondary level had no significant association with glycaemic control | |
Rwegerera [73] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Botswana | Type 2 diabetes | 368 | HbA1c | desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%) | Primary to secondary completed | Odds Ratio | 1.44 | 0.44 | 4.74 | No singificant relationship between having completed primary to secondary school and glycaemic control | |
College/University/Postgraduate completed | 1.14 | 0.42 | 3.1 | No singificant relationship between having completed College/University/Postgraduate and glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Tefera [77] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 400 | FPG | Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl) | Elementary school | Odds Ratio | 0.20 | 0.02 | 1.65 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having reached elementary school | |
High school | 0.20 | 0.02 | 1.63 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having reached high school | ||||||||||
Higher education | 0.45 | 0.05 | 3.86 | No significant association between glycaemic control and having reached higher institution | ||||||||||
Able to read and write | 0.12 | 0.01 | 1.05 | No significant association between glycaemic control and being able to read and write | ||||||||||
Yosef [87] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 245 | FBG | Good control (FBG:70–130 mg/dL) | No formal education | 3.12 | 1.53 | 6.35 | Significant association between no formal education and poor glycaemic control | ||
BeLue [27] | 2016 | Cross-sectional | Senegal | Type 2 diabetes | 106 | HbA1c | Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) | Unsatisfied household situation | Unsatisfied household situation | ß coefficient | − 0.701 | -1.266 | − 0.146 | Having Unsatisfied household situation had no significant association with glycaemic control |
Kamuhabwa [47] | 2014 | Cross-sectional | Tanzania | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 469 | FBG | Good control (FBG ≤ 130 mg/dL or 7.2 mmol/L); poor control (FBG > 130 mg/dL or 7.2 mmol/L) | Health insurance | Absence of health insurance | Odds Ratio | 1.861 | 1.044 | 3.318 | Absence of health insurance was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control |
Mobula [58] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Hypertensive and Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 1226 | HbA1c | Poor control (HBA1c ≥ 7%) | Odds Ratio | 1.41 | 1.09 | 1.82 | The absence of health insurance was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control | ||
Ayele [25] | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; > 18 years | 275 | FBG | Good control (FBG level between 70 and 130 mg/dL); poor control (FBG greater than 130 or less than 70 mg/ dL) | Distance from home to the health structure | Distance less than 100 km | Odds Ratio | 13.195 | 3.193 | 54.517 | Residing from less than 100 km from the hospital was significantly associated with glycaemic control |
Mphwanthe [61] | 2020 | Cross-sectional | Malawi | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 25 years | 428 | HbA1c | Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) | Distance ≥ 5 kilometers | ß coefficient | − 0.167 | − 0.428 | 0.094 | Residing at a distance to the hospital ≥ 5 km was not significantly associated with glycaemic control | |
Fseha [40] | 2017 | Cross-sectional | Ethiopia | Type 2 diabetes; 22–60 years | 200 | FBS | Good (FBS 70–130 mg/dl), poor (FBS > 130 mg/dl) | Wealth status | Medium | Odds Ratio | 2.335 | 0.933 | 5.844 | Medium wealth status had no significant association with glycaemic control |
Rich | 0.679 | 0.313 | 1.471 | Rich Wealth status had no significant association with glycaemic control | ||||||||||
Camara [32] | 2014 | Cross-sectional | Cameroon and Guinea | Type 2 diabetes mellitus; ≥ 16 years | 1267 | HbA1c | Good control (HbA1C < 7.0% or < 53 mmol/mol) | Country of residence | Guinea | Odds Ratio | 2.62 | 1.90 | 3.61 | Residing in Guinea was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control |
Osuji [68] | 2018 | Cross-sectional | Nigeria | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 316 | HbA1c | Good (HbA1c < 7%); poor (HbA1c ≥ 7%) | Family support | Perceived family support | Odds Ratio | 112.51 | 46.638 | 271.440 | Perceived family support was significantly associated with good glycaemic control |
Botchway [31] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 254 | HbA1c | No threshold | Religion | Frequency participating in religious activities | ß coefficient | − 0.22 | − 0.32 | − 0.12 | Frequency of participating in religious activities had a significant association with good glycaemic control |
Botchway [31] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 254 | HbA1c | No threshold | Social support | Social support | ß coefficient | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.42 | Social support had no significany association with glycaemic control |
Botchway [31] | 2021 | Cross-sectional | Ghana | Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years | 254 | HbA1c | No threshold | Alternative care | Frequency seeking traditional medicine practitioners | ß coefficient | 1.40 | 0.92 | 1.88 | The frequency of seeking Traditional Medicine practitioners had a significant association with poor glycaemic control |