Association between the 2026 IDF-DAR risk category and Ramadan fasting intention among adults with diabetes in primary care: a cross-sectional study

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background The 2026 International Diabetes Federation–Diabetes and Ramadan (IDF-DAR) Risk Calculator supports Ramadan-related diabetes risk assessment, but its association with fasting intention in primary care is unclear. We examined the association between risk category and fasting intention and explored illness-perception and decision-related variables. Methods This single-centre cross-sectional study included 488 adults with diabetes assessed in a hospital-based family medicine clinic in Türkiye from 19 February to 19 March 2026, during Ramadan. The outcome was self-reported intention to fast during the remainder of Ramadan. Risk-category associations were examined using crude and sociodemographic-adjusted logistic regression. Age and four five-point decision-related indicators were modelled nonlinearly in an exploratory model that also included the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) total score. An extended model added previous-year fasting experience. Results Overall, 178 participants (36.5%) intended to fast. Of 95 low-, 230 moderate-, and 163 high-risk participants, 38.9%, 46.5%, and 20.9%, respectively, intended to fast. Compared with low risk, high-risk classification was associated with lower odds of fasting intention in the crude model (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24–0.72) and the sociodemographic-adjusted model (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25–0.79). In exploratory Model 3, the high-risk estimate was imprecise (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.36–3.72), whereas the moderate-risk estimate was elevated but sensitive to model specification (OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.34–10.56). The B-IPQ total score was not associated with fasting intention (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96–1.04). Perceived personal fasting risk and confidence in glycaemic control showed overall nonlinear associations (both p < 0.001). In extended Model 4, previous-year fasting was strongly associated with current fasting intention (yes vs. no: OR 25.00, 95% CI 7.92–78.95), while the high-risk estimate remained imprecise (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13–2.42). Conclusions In this hospital-based sample, approximately one in five high-risk participants intended to fast. High-risk classification was associated with lower fasting intention before exploratory contemporaneous variables were added; thereafter, the estimate was attenuated and imprecise. Prospective studies should examine actual fasting behaviour and clinical outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.