Voting Participation in Local Elections and Mobility Difficulties Among Persons with Diabetes: Results from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey
Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA 19038, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diabetology 2025, 6(9), 84; https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6090084
Submission received: 24 June 2025
/
Revised: 24 July 2025
/
Accepted: 7 August 2025
/
Published: 25 August 2025
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Civic engagement may be a critical determinant of prognostic outcomes in persons with diabetes. Persons with diabetes are at increased risk for mobility impairment. Little research has explored the role of mobility difficulties in voting participation among persons with diabetes. Methods: To examine whether mobility difficulties influence voting participation in U.S. local elections among persons with diabetes, data was obtained from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey for persons with diabetes (n = 1398). The independent variable was mobility difficulties, defined as difficulty walking or climbing stairs. The dependent variable, voting participation, was assessed by an indication as to whether respondents voted in the last local elections. Weighted logistic regression assessed the influence of mobility difficulties on voting participation adjusting for potentially influential covariates among persons with diabetes. Results: Among persons with diabetes, less than one fifth (18.8%) voted in the last local election and half (48.9%) reported difficulties walking or climbing stairs. In models adjusting for covariates, persons with diabetes who indicated they had difficulties in walking or climbing stairs were significantly less likely to indicate they had voted in the last local election in comparison with those without mobility difficulties (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.638, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.443, 0.918)). Persons with diabetes who were female, married, had graduated from college or technical school, or rated their health as good/very good were significantly more likely to report having voted in a local election. Conclusions: Initiatives are needed to foster voting participation among persons with diabetes and mobility difficulties.
1. Introduction
Voter participation from all communities and populations of the U.S. is critical to elect officials who represent all citizens’ needs and values. Despite this, the U.S. voting process has historically been fraught with inaccessibility and inequity, disproportionately impacting people with disabilities [1,2]. In the November 2022 election, differences in voter turnout were significantly higher for those without disabilities compared to those with disabilities, with some variation by type of disability [3]. People who experienced mobility-related issues (difficulty dressing or bathing) reported some of the lowest rates of voting in contrast to those without disability (37.9% versus 52.4%) [4]. Some research suggests that most polling facilities are not fully equipped to meet the needs of people with mobility issues (e.g., gradual ramps, including more signage of accessible walkways, smoothing walkway surfaces, and increasing parking) [4].
Mobility difficulties are defined as any self-perceived difficulty walking or climbing such as in the use of stairs or inclines. A systematic review regarding voting accessibility for persons with disabilities found that many barriers to participation in voting continue to persist stemming from legal and institutional frameworks inhibiting the engagement in voting [5]. Barriers included inadequate transportation, polling location structural issues, and limited awareness/knowledge [5]. Additionally, poor social support, attitudinal and cultural factors may contribute to lower participation. The perceived indignity of navigating and overcoming the many systemic attitudinal and structural barriers may result in feelings of alienation and inspire a reluctance to participate in the voting process [6].
Diabetes is associated with a 50–80% increased risk of physical disability [7]. Conversely, people with disabilities are significantly more likely to have diabetes [8,9]. The Centers for Disease Control reported that approximately 1 in 6 people with disabilities (16.2%) had diabetes in contrast to 1 in 14 persons without disabilities (7.5%). Diabetes and physical disability are interconnected through a myriad of biological (e.g., inflammation) behavioral (lifestyle factors, healthcare access) and psychological mechanisms (e.g., mental health co-morbidity). Persons with diabetes represent a growing segment of the U.S. population and there is an increasing awareness that their social and civic engagement may be important for improving the well-being and addressing the needs of this population.
Little research has assessed the interplay between diabetes, mobility difficulties, and voting engagement. Prior studies have sought to understand the relationship between disability and voting participation, primarily reporting that people with disability are less likely to vote than people without disabilities. Some studies have looked at indicators of physical disability/mobility (e.g., engagement in daily activities or self-reported health) or chronic disease status in relation to voting behaviors. Studies assessing diabetes in relation to voting behavior have shown mixed results but have primarily indicated that diabetes is negatively associated with voter turnout [10,11]. One study reported that people with diabetes were more likely to vote than those without diabetes [12]. Research has shown that persons with physical disabilities, impaired engagement in daily activities or worse self-reported health are less likely to register or vote [6,12,13,14]. Evidence indicates many voters prioritize federal, state, and national elections above local elections [15]. This may be due to many factors such as misperceptions that local elections are less important and impactful than other types of elections. The assessment of voting turnout has largely focused on presidential, national or state-level elections in these studies despite the importance of local elections in shaping political and health outcomes [3,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19]. Scholars have been consistently drawing attention to the importance of voting in local elections as their results may have wide-reaching and longstanding implications for human health and well-being [20].
The present study utilized data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a nationally representative survey, to investigate the relationship between mobility difficulties and voter participation among adults with diabetes in the U.S. This is the first known study to assess the relationship between physical mobility difficulties and voting in local elections among people with diabetes. We hypothesize that persons with diabetes in the U.S. with mobility difficulties would be significantly less likely to participate in local elections in comparison to those who did not have any mobility difficulties. Improving the understanding of how mobility impacts an individual with diabetes’ ability to vote will inform and expand upon new and existing initiatives to improve voter participation among people with diabetes.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Population
Data was obtained from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) administered by the National Center for Health Statistics on a yearly basis [21]. We chose to analyze 2022 data because voter turnout typically drops in between presidential election years and we wanted to understand more about determinants of voting behaviors during this time frame. These cross-sectional surveys are carried out under the direction of the U.S. Census Bureau Regional Offices. Interviews occur on a yearly basis in participants’ residences to obtain survey data. In some circumstance phone follow-up communication is needed to complete these home interviews. If logistical issues are encountered telephone interviews are requested by eligible community members. The sample was drawn using a geographical clustering and stratified approach among civilian noninstitutionalized people in the United States and the District of Columbia. The sampling frame also encompassed those in shelters, rooming houses, and group homes. Persons who were excluded were those who did not have a residential address and/or had specific military role. Additional exclusion criteria were those in a long-term care or institutional facilities, or were in a different nation. The complex sampling design was addressed through weights [22]. For this analysis people were included if they had diabetes, which was defined by an indication that a doctor or other health professional ever told them they had diabetes. Previous research in Medicare claims data reports that NHIS self-reports are strongly correlated with objective clinical documentation of diabetes [23]. The Arcadia University Institutional Review Board found this study to be exempt.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Dependent Variable: Voting Participation
The dependent variable in this study was voting participation through voting in the most recent local election. Voting participation was assessed by an indication as to whether respondents voted in the last local elections, such as for mayor, councilmembers, or school board. Responses were coded as yes or no.
2.2.2. Independent Variable: Mobility Difficulties
The independent variable was mobility difficulty. The presence of mobility difficulty was measured through a question where participants were asked “Do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps? Would you say no difficulty, some difficulty, a lot of difficulty, or you cannot do this at all?” Persons who indicated some, a lot, or could not do at all were combined were categorized as having mobility difficulties. Those who indicated they had no difficulty walking or climbing steps were categorized as not having mobility difficulties. Responses were coded as yes or no.
2.2.3. Covariates
Standard questions were used to obtain basic demographic characteristics. Respondents’ information used were as follows: age (18 to 34, 35 to 64, 65 and older), race (White, Hispanic, Black/African American, and other), biological sex (female, male), marital status (married, not married), education (less than high school, graduated high school, attended college or technical school, and graduated college or technical school), poverty to income ratio (PIR) (low-income level (PIR < 1), middle-income level (PIR 1–3.99), and high-income level (PIR 4 or greater)) [24], metropolitan status (large central, large fringe, medium and small, and not metropolitan), region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), whether participants have health plan coverage (yes, no), are a U.S. citizen (U.S. citizen, not U.S. citizen), health status mobility (difficulty walking or climbing, no difficulty), cognitive (difficulty remembering or concentrating, no difficulty), communicating (difficulty communicating, no difficulty), hearing (difficulty hearing, no difficulty), vision (difficulty seeing, no difficulty), general health (fair/poor, very good, and excellent), depressive disorder (yes, no), body mass index (BMI) (obese, overweight, normal/healthy, and underweight), and type of diabetes (Type 1 or other, Type 2 diabetes mellitus) [25]. Criteria for BMI was established based on CDC obesity categorizations.
2.2.4. Data Analysis
The analysis was conducted in several steps. The first step involved looking at descriptive statistics by basic tabulations of key variables. Tabulations and frequencies were assessed. The second step involved bivariate assessments of those which did and did not participate in voting in local elections using chi-square tests. The final steps involved weighted multivariate logistic regression to assess the influence of mobility difficulties on voter participation in local elections controlling for potentially influential confounders. Due to the study design involving stratification and clustering, complex samples weighting was applied. Results are presented in the form of adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28.
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
Among persons with diabetes with complete data (n = 1398), nearly one fifth (18.8%) had voted the last local election and half (48.9%) reported difficulties walking or climbing stairs. Respondents self-identified as White (62.5%), Black/African American (15.7%), Hispanic (14.2%), or Other (7.6%). Most participants were aged 65 and older (54.9%), female (52.2%), had an associates or college degree or higher (38.3%), were middle income (54.9%), U.S. citizens (95.4%), and had health insurance (96.9%).
3.2. Voting in Local Elections and Mobility Difficulties
Bivariate analyses are depicted in Table 1 and results from logistic regression models are shown in Table 2. Persons with diabetes who reported voting in the last local election in comparison to those who did not were significantly less likely report having had difficulties in walking or climbing stairs (34.7% versus 50.4%; p < 0.001). In models adjusting for covariates, persons with diabetes who indicated they had mobility difficulties in walking or climbing stairs were significantly less likely to indicate that they had voted in the last local election in comparison with those without mobility difficulties (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.638, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.443, 0.918)).
3.3. Determinants of Voting in Local Elections
Bivariate analysis reported that persons with diabetes who reported not voting local elections in comparison to those who did not were significantly more likely to be Hispanic or Other, not be U.S. citizens, or have lower levels of education or income. In terms of health status, those who did not vote in local elections were more likely to report vision difficulties or indicated that their general health was poor/fair (Table 1). In fully adjusted models, persons with diabetes who were female, married, had graduated from college or technical school, or rated their health as good/very good were significantly more likely to report voting in a local election (Table 2).
4. Discussion
This study assessed the relationship between voter participation in the United States and mobility difficulties among adults with diabetes in the U.S. Persons with diabetes who indicated they had mobility difficulties in walking or climbing stairs were significantly less likely to indicate that they had voted in the last local election in comparison with those without mobility difficulties. Our results suggest that mobility difficulties may impede the ability to participate in voting for adults with diabetes in the U.S. Considering the elevated risk for mobility impairment and disability associated with diabetes [7], these results underscore a critical need for more accessible voting pathways and facilitative systems for adults with diabetes and physical difficulties who wish to exercise their right to vote.
We found that mobility difficulties decreased voter participation in local participation for people with diabetes and mobility difficulties. One study focused on accessibility, voter turnout, and identifying and removing obstacles to voting participation found that people with disabilities experienced greater difficulty in voting and had a lower likelihood of participating in the voting process [26]. A 2014 study evaluating voter participation in presidential elections from 1980 to 2008 found that individuals with mobility impairments, alongside those with cognitive impartments, had the lowest rates of voter participation [17]. In other work, voter turnout was significantly higher for those without disabilities in contrast to those with disabilities, with persons experiencing mobility-related impediments reporting some of the lowest voting rates [3].
Prior investigations into the relationship between chronic disease and voter participation have shown that voter participation decreases among adults with certain chronic illnesses such as heart disease, asthma, and diabetes [11,12,13]. Some research has found that diabetes is negatively associated with voter turnout and participation [10,11]. One study by McGuire et al. found that individuals diagnosed with diabetes were 7% more likely to vote than those without diabetes, particularly among individuals who were Hispanic or multiracial [12]. This discrepancy may be attributed to the comparison between local versus presidential elections. Research has shown that voting behavior may differ by local or presidential elections suggesting that federal or national elections are of higher priority for a larger portion of voters [15]. One study found that individuals who are hampered by illness in their daily lives were more likely to participate politically through boycotting, signing petitions, and protesting and they are also often less likely to participate explicitly in the voting process [13].
Prior studies have assessed diabetes or mobility difficulties separately in relation to voter participation. Most of these studies have focused on presidential elections. This is the first known study to assess how mobility difficulties in people with diabetes specifically impacts voter participation in local elections [12,27]. Given the compounding burden of mobility difficulties and diabetes outcomes, understanding how mobility difficulties impact a person’s ability to vote in local elections is important for developing programs and strategies to facilitate civic engagement [7,28]. Local elections play an essential role in political processes providing the foundation for broader political engagement and change. Local elections, in contrast to state or federal elections, can have a more direct effect on people’s daily lives shaping the policies that impact their well-being. Local elections dictate the funding and activities of local governments for key functions like safety services, schools and community initiatives. Hence, many scholars and politicians have called for increased emphasis on local elections in order to support local governments functioning in ways that fully represent and respond to the needs of communities [20]. Creating inclusive polling environments for those with disabilities, namely diabetes and mobility difficulties, can foster electoral outcomes that most effectively support the needs of people with chronic health issues and disabilities.
Underlying factors that shape the relationship between diabetes, mobility difficulty and voter participation in persons with diabetes are an important area of inquiry. Biological, social, and emotional mechanisms shape the bi-directional relationship between diabetes and mobility difficulties. Biological and physiological changes such as inflammation and skeletal changes lead to a greater likelihood of physical impairment [29,30]. Conversely, factors associated with mobility difficulties can lead to increased risk for diabetes [31]. Behavioral and emotional factors associated with diabetes (e.g., poor medication taking, minimal care engagement, poor adherence to healthy lifestyle recommendations, social isolation, mental health disorders) further exacerbate risk for physical difficulties [32,33]. Physical disability can reduce the likelihood of engaging in health promoting behaviors (e.g., exercise, healthy diet) and inhibit access to needed healthcare services increasing risk for the onset and progression of diabetes [34,35]. Additionally structural and systemic factors may limit and reduce voting accessibility. Prior research has identified many barriers that can impede voting accessibility including inadequate transportation and minimal accommodations for persons with mobility difficulties [5]. Furthermore, the social environment and context including perceptions, belief, social resources, and stigma may all influence voter participation for persons with chronic illness and disability [6]. Hence, the compound effect of these social, emotional, biological, structural, social and systemic factors associated with diabetes and mobility issues may make voting in local elections particularly challenging.
The findings of this study show that persons with diabetes who were female, married, had graduated from college or technical school, or rated their health as good/very good were significantly more likely to report voting in a local election. This is consistent with prior research reporting that women are more likely to register and turnout to vote [36]. People who are married are more likely to vote than single persons [37], and if a marital partner votes it is more likely that their spouse will vote as well [38]. Substantial research has documented the relationship between educational attainment and voting [39]. Additionally, prior research shows that individuals with diabetes who reported lower self-rated health were significantly less likely to vote than individuals with higher self-rated health [12].
The limitations of this study are important to note. First, this was a cross-sectional study which inhibits implications regarding whether co-morbid diabetes and mobility difficulties have a causal relationship with local voting participation. Further research is needed to assess the temporality of this relationship. Second, in the NHIS dataset used, all measures were obtained by self-report, which can be subject to various forms of bias. However, prior research indicates that NHIS self-reports are correlated with clinical documentations of diabetes in Medicare claims data [23]. Third, diabetes is frequently underdiagnosed, particularly in vulnerable populations, and thus our population for analysis may not represent all persons with diabetes [40]. Fourth, findings from this study are limited to local elections. Future research is needed to examine whether there are differences in voting behaviors for state and federal elections for persons with mobility difficulties and diabetes. Fifth, the definition of mobility difficulties is not comprehensive and does not include assistive technologies, which might provide additional information. Further studies should investigate the role of assistive technology and other mechanisms that influence the role of mobility difficulties in voting behavior.
5. Conclusions
The American Association of People with Disabilities and the American Diabetes Association seek to increase the political engagement and power of persons with disabilities or diabetes. In this study, we found that people with diabetes who have mobility difficulties are significantly less likely to vote in local elections than people without mobility difficulties. Persons with chronic illness and disability, particularly diabetes and mobility difficulties, represent an increasing segment of the U.S. population.
Our findings underscore the importance of the modification or development of programs and policies aiming to support the political engagement of people with diabetes and mobility difficulties. These findings highlight the importance of increasing education on the increased likelihood of reduced voter turnout among people with diabetes and mobility difficulties. Educational information and resources should be broadly shared to policy makers, clinicians, public health practitioners, and other key stakeholders that might influence factors that can increase voting for persons with mobility difficulties and diabetes. Collaborative and coordinated efforts addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators are needed to foster political engagement of people with diabetes and mobility difficulties.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Data Curation, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Formal Analysis, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Investigation, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Methodology, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Project Administration, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Resources, H.F.M.; Software, H.F.M.; Supervision, H.F.M., S.E.E.; Validation, H.F.M.; Writing—Original Draft, H.F.M., S.E.E., N.L.D.; Writing Reviewing and Editing, H.F.M., S.E.E., N.L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The Institutional Review Board at Arcadia University found this study to be exempt.
Data Availability Statement
Data is publicly available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/documentation/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/data-questionnaires-documentation.htm (accessed on 2 April 2024).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| NHIS | National Health Institute Survey |
| AOR | Adjusted Odds Ratio |
| CI | Confidence Interval |
References
- Burden, B.C.; Fletcher, J.M.; Herd, P.; Jones, B.M.; Moynihan, D.P. How Different Forms of Health Matter to Political Participation. J. Polit. 2017, 79, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bronitskaya, E. Election Participation of Persons with Disabilities. In Routledge Handbook of Election Law; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2022; Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429401800-16/election-participation-persons-disabilities-enira-bronitskaya?context=ubx (accessed on 15 January 2025).
- Schur, L.; Kruse, D.; Ameri, M. Disability and Voter Turnout in the 2022 Elections: Supplemental Analysis of Census Voter Turnout Data; Election Assistant Commission: Washington, DC, USA; Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–13. Available online: https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/EAC_2023_Rutgers_Report_Supplement_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- US Government Accountability Office. Voters with Disabilities: Observations on Polling Place Accessibility and Related Federal Guidance [4 December 2017]; GAO: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. Available online: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-4 (accessed on 1 February 2025).
- Bah, Y.M. Democracy and the Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Politics and Elections: Challenges and Lessons for Human Rights Advocates. Int. J. Latest Res. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2022, 5, 66–78. [Google Scholar]
- Schur, L.; Adya, M. Sidelined or Mainstreamed? Political Participation and Attitudes of People with Disabilities in the United States. Soc. Sci. Q. 2013, 94, 811–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, E.; Backholer, K.; Gearon, E.; Harding, J.; Freak-Poli, R.; Stevenson, C.; Peeters, A. Diabetes and risk of physical disability in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013, 1, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, I.; Rhee, E.J.; Lee, W.Y. Diabetes in People with Disabilities: A Call for Action. Cardiovasc. Prev. Pharmacother. 2021, 3, 82–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control. Disability and Diabetes Prevention. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents/diabetes-prevention.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/features/disability-and-diabetes-prevention.html (accessed on 28 May 2025).
- Gollust, S.E.; Rahn, W.M. The Bodies Politic: Chronic Health Conditions and Voter Turnout in the 2008 Election. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 2015, 40, 1116–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sund, R.; Lahtinen, H.; Wass, H.; Mattila, M.; Martikainen, P. How voter turnout varies between different chronic conditions? A population-based register study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2017, 71, 457–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGuire, C.M.; Rahn, W.; Gollust, S.E. Chronic health conditions and voter turnout: Results from the 2012 United States presidential election. World Med. Health Policy. 2021, 13, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stockemer, D.; Rapp, C. The influence of various measures of health on different types of political participation. Politics 2019, 39, 480–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, P.J.; Ailshire, J.A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, E.R.; de Kleijn–de Vrankrijker, M.W. Participation among adults with disability: The role of the urban environment. Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 72, 167–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cancela, J.; Geys, B. Explaining voter turnout: A meta-analysis of national and subnational elections. Elect. Stud. 2016, 42, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, A.A.; Powell, S. Disability and election administration in the United States: Barriers and improvements. Policy Studies 2019, 41, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsubayashi, T.; Ueda, M. Disability and voting. Disabil. Health J. 2014, 7, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schur, L.; Shields, T.; Schriner, K. Generational Cohorts, Group Membership, and Political Participation by People with Disabilities. Polit. Res. Q. 2005, 58, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulmann, R.; Lewis, D.C. Making the Vote (In)Accessible: Administration Laws and Turnout Among People with Disabilities. Polit. Groups Identities 2024, 12, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behrens, D.M.; Gambill, L.; Beck, A.F. Elevating the Importance of Local Elections. JAMA 2024, 332, 191–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey, 2022 Survey Description. 2023. Available online: https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/NHIS/2022/srvydesc-508.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- Parsons, V.L.; Moriarity, C.; Jonas, K.; Moore, T.F.; Davis, K.E.; Tompkins, L. Design and estimation for the national health interview survey, 2006–2015. Vital. Health Stat. 2014, 2, 1–53. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Day, H.R.; Parker, J.D. Self-report of diabetes and claims-based identification of diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries. Natl. Health Stat. Report. 2013, 69, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Tang, M.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, R. Association of family income to poverty ratio and vibration-controlled transient elastography quantified degree of hepatic steatosis in U.S. adolescents. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1160625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Centers for Disease Control Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey 2022 NHIS. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/documentation/2022-nhis.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/2022nhis.htm (accessed on 9 April 2024).
- Schur, L.; Adya, M.; Ameri, M. Accessible Democracy: Reducing Voting Obstacles for People with Disabilities. Elect. Law J. 2015, 14, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Söderlund, P.; Rapeli, L. In sickness and in health: Personal health and political participation in the Nordic countries. Politics Life Sci. 2015, 34, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsai, Y.H.; Chuang, L.L.; Lee, Y.J.; Chiu, C.J. How Does Diabetes Accelerate Normal Aging? An Examination of ADL, IADL, and Mobility Disability in Middle-aged and Older Adults With and Without Diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 182, 109114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burini, R.C.; Anderson, E.; Durstine, J.L.; Carson, J.A. Inflammation, physical activity, and chronic disease: An evolutionary perspective. Sports Med. Health Sci. 2020, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Han, Z.; Cheng, H.; Li, H.; Wang, K.; Chen, J.; Liu, Z.X.; Xie, Y.; Lin, Y.; Zhou, S.; et al. The impact of aging mechanisms on musculoskeletal system disease in the elderly. Front. Immunol. 2024, 15, 1405621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilby, M.L. Physical Mobility Impairment and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease. Health Equity 2019, 3, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, Y.; Wu, W.; Dove, A.; Guo, J.; Welmer, A.K.; Rizzuto, D.; Fratiglioni, L.; Xu, W. Healthy behaviors, leisure activities, and social network prolong disability-free survival in older adults with diabetes. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2022, 77, 2093–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, Y.H.; Chuang, L.L.; Lee, Y.J.; Chiu, C.J. Behavioral and psychological factors in buffering diabetes-related disability development. Ann. Behav. Med. 2023, 57, 1046–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, P.S.; Farkas, G.J.; Gater, D.R., Jr. Neurogenic obesity-induced insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus in chronic spinal cord injury. Top. Spinal Cord. Inj. Rehabil. 2021, 27, 36–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kendzerska, T.; King, L.K.; Lipscombe, L.; Croxford, R.; Stanaitis, I.; Hawker, G.A. The impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis on the subsequent risk of incident diabetes: A population-based cohort study. Diabetologia 2018, 61, 2290–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). Gender Differences in Voter Turnout; Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University-New Brunswick: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2025; Available online: https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/gender-differences-voter-turnout (accessed on 21 May 2025).
- Wolfinger, N.H.; Wolfinger, R. Family Structure and Voter Turnout. Soc. Forces 2008, 86, 1513–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoker, L.; Jennings, M.K. Life-Cycle Transitions and Political Participation: The Case of Marriage. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1995, 89, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sondheimer, R.M.; Green, D.P. Using experiments to estimate the effects of education on voter turnout. Am. J. Political Sci. 2010, 54, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control. A Report Card: Diabetes in the United States Infographic. 2023. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/communication-resources/diabetes-statistics.html (accessed on 10 April 2024).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics and health status of persons with diabetes from 2022 NHIS by voting participation in local elections.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics and health status of persons with diabetes from 2022 NHIS by voting participation in local elections.
| Sociodemographic Characteristics | Voted in Local Election (Weighted) | Did not Vote in Local Election (Weighted) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| 18 to 34 | 2.9% | 3.9% | 0.591 |
| 35 to 64 | 54.9% | 50.7% | |
| 65+ | 42.2% | 45.5% | |
| Race | |||
| White | 67.7% | 54.3% | 0.002 ** |
| Hispanic | 10.4% | 21.4% | |
| Black/African American | 15.3% | 15.3% | |
| Other | 6.7% | 9.0% | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 48.1% | 51.2% | 0.468 |
| Female | 51.9% | 48.8% | |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 61.8% | 53.9% | 0.052 |
| Not married | 38.2% | 46.1% | |
| Education | |||
| Less than high school | 5.8% | 20.4% | <0.001 *** |
| Graduated high school | 20.1% | 32.2% | |
| Attended college or technical school | 19.1% | 17.6% | |
| Graduate college or technical school | 55.0% | 29.7% | |
| Poverty to income ratio | |||
| Low income | 4.9% | 14.5% | <0.001 *** |
| Middle income | 48.9% | 57.1% | |
| High income | 46.2% | 28.4% | |
| Metropolitan status | |||
| Large central | 28.7% | 30.0% | 0.444 |
| Large fringe | 24.0% | 21.0% | |
| Medium and small | 33.0% | 30.4% | |
| Not metropolitan | 14.3% | 18.5% | |
| Region | |||
| Northeast | 15.1% | 16.0% | 0.517 |
| Midwest | 22.6% | 19.3% | |
| South | 43.3% | 41.4% | |
| West | 19.1% | 23.3% | |
| Has health plan coverage | |||
| Yes | 97.9% | 94.8% | 0.135 |
| No | 2.1% | 5.2% | |
| Citizenship | |||
| U.S. citizen | 98.7% | 91.2% | <0.001 *** |
| Not U.S. citizen | 1.3% | 8.8% | |
| Health Status | |||
| Mobility | |||
| Difficulty walking or climbing | 34.7% | 50.4% | <0.001 *** |
| No difficulty | 65.3% | 49.6% | |
| Cognitive | |||
| Difficulty remembering or concentrating | 30.1% | 32.0% | 0.598 |
| No difficulty | 69.9% | 68.0% | |
| Communication | |||
| Difficulty communicating | 5.6% | 10.3% | 0.067 |
| No difficulty | 94.4% | 89.7% | |
| Hearing | |||
| Difficulty hearing | 25.4% | 25.2% | 0.953 |
| No difficulty | 74.6% | 74.8% | |
| Vision | |||
| Difficulty seeing | 24.0% | 32.8% | 0.017 * |
| No difficulty | 76.0% | 67.2% | |
| General health | |||
| Fair/poor | 26.3% | 45.4% | <0.001 *** |
| Very good | 70.2% | 51.3% | |
| Excellent | 3.5% | 3.2% | |
| Depressive disorder | |||
| No | 76.9% | 73.6% | 0.329 |
| Yes | 23.1% | 26.4% | |
| Body mass index | |||
| Obese | 57.5% | 55.7% | 0.214 |
| Overweight | 31.8% | 29.1% | |
| Normal/healthy | 10.7% | 15.2% | |
| Underweight | |||
| Type of diabetes | |||
| Type 1 or other | 9.4% | 13.4% | 0.141 |
| Type 2 diabetes mellitus | 90.6% | 86.6% |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 2.
Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between voting in local elections and difficulties in mobility.
Table 2.
Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between voting in local elections and difficulties in mobility.
| Disability Indicators | Voting in Local Election AOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Mobility | |
| Difficulty walking or climbing | 0.638 (0.443, 0.918) |
| No difficulty | 1.00 |
| Cognitive | |
| Difficulty remembering or concentrating | 1.40 (0.943, 2.088) |
| No difficulty | 1.00 |
| Communication | |
| Difficulty communicating | 0.728 (0.354, 1.495) |
| No difficulty | 1.00 |
| Hearing | |
| Difficulty hearing | 1.162 (0.799, 1.690) |
| No difficulty | 1.00 |
| Vision | |
| Difficulty seeing | 0.884 (0.593, 1.318) |
| No difficulty | 1.00 |
| Demographic Characteristics | |
| Age | |
| 35 to 64 | 1.534 (0.453, 5.201) |
| 65 and older | 1.258 (0.358, 4.418) |
| 18 to 24 (reference) | 1.00 |
| Sex | |
| Female | 1.534 (1.085, 2.163) |
| Male (reference) | 1.00 |
| Marital status | |
| Not married | 0.843 (0.590, 1.205) |
| Married | 1.00 |
| Education | |
| Graduated high school | 1.556 (0.709, 3.413) |
| Attended college or technical school | 2.193 (0.944, 5.096) |
| Graduate college or technical school | 3.760 (1.681, 8.411) |
| Less than high school (reference) | 1.00 |
| Poverty to income ratio | |
| Middle | 1.654 (0.851, 3.213) |
| High | 1.779 (0.869, 3.642) |
| Low | 1.00 |
| Health insurance | |
| Does not have health plan coverage | 0.922 (0.262, 3.250) |
| Has health plan coverage (reference) | 1.00 |
| Metropolitan status | |
| Large fringe | 1.088 (0.679, 1.73) |
| Medium and small | 0.991 (0.650, 1.511) |
| Non-metropolitan | 0.786 (0.463, 1.334) |
| Large central | 1.00 |
| Region | |
| Midwest | 1.132 (0.659, 1.947) |
| West | 0.952 (0.513, 1.666) |
| South | 1.173 (0.724, 1.902) |
| Northeast (reference) | 1.00 |
| Citizenship | |
| U.S. citizen | 1.057 (0.865, 16.439) |
| Not U.S. citizen | 1.00 |
| Health Status | |
| Depression | |
| No depressive disorder | 1.250 (0.823, 1.897) |
| Depressive disorder (reference) | 1.00 |
| General health | |
| Excellent | 0.898 (0.353, 2.288) |
| Very good/good | 1.598 (1.060, 2.408) |
| Fair/poor (reference) | 1.00 |
| Body mass index | |
| Overweight | 1.539 (0.932, 2.541) |
| Obese | 1.488 (0.951, 2.329) |
| Normal/healthy (reference) | 1.00 |
| Type of diabetes | |
| Type 1 or other | 1.277 (0.659, 1.947) |
| Type 2 diabetes mellitus (reference) | 1.00 |
Note: AOR, adjusted odds ratios; CI, confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
McClintock, H.F.; Edmonds, S.E.; Ducray, N.L. Voting Participation in Local Elections and Mobility Difficulties Among Persons with Diabetes: Results from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. Diabetology 2025, 6, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6090084
AMA Style
McClintock HF, Edmonds SE, Ducray NL. Voting Participation in Local Elections and Mobility Difficulties Among Persons with Diabetes: Results from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. Diabetology. 2025; 6(9):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6090084
Chicago/Turabian StyleMcClintock, Heather F., Sarah E. Edmonds, and Nicole L. Ducray. 2025. "Voting Participation in Local Elections and Mobility Difficulties Among Persons with Diabetes: Results from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey" Diabetology 6, no. 9: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6090084
APA StyleMcClintock, H. F., Edmonds, S. E., & Ducray, N. L. (2025). Voting Participation in Local Elections and Mobility Difficulties Among Persons with Diabetes: Results from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. Diabetology, 6(9), 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6090084
