BMC Public Health 2007, 7:277 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/277 (n = 368) and type 2 DM (n = 3,898), and 0–2 (n = 5,295) and 3–5 RF (n = 5,400) groups are shown in Additional File 1. US census data are also included for comparison. Younger age groups, African Americans, and Asian Amer- icans were generally under-represented in the study popu- lation, compared with US census data. With some exceptions, in general, the sociodemographic characteristics of the population sample group and US census data were similar to those seen in the 0–2 RF group. In contrast, at least with regard to age, income, and household size, the 3–5 RF group had sociodemographic characteristics more similar to the type 2 DM group. The type 1 DM group tended to be younger and the type 2 DM group tended to be older than the population sample. In summary, the 3–5 RF and type 2 DM groups tended to be older, and to have lower incomes and smaller household size compared to the 0–2 RF group, population control sample, and US census. The lower income and smaller household size relationship for the 3–5 RF and type 2 DM groups remained even with age stratification. RF proportions The proportion of respondents with individual RFs within each subgroup of interest are shown in Table 3. The type 1 DM group had similar proportions of abdominal obes- ity and BMI ≥28 as the population sample and the 0–2 RF groups. Both the type 1 and type 2 DM subgroups had a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with dyslipidemia, hypertension, and CVD events (perhaps in part related to more intensive medical evaluations once being diagnosed with DM) compared to the population sample and 0–2 RF group. The type 2 DM group and the 3–5 RF group had generally similar individual RF proportions and a similar average number of risk factors. Approximately 78% of the type 2 DM group had 3–5 risk factors. Finally, within each subgroup, CVD was the least frequently reported RF. Discussion The SHIELD design allowed for a very large, community- based sample with broad demographic representation of the population of interest. The use of the TNS NFO house- hold survey panel also resulted in a high response rate for Table 3: Proportion of respondents with risk factors and by diabetes group Population Sample (n = 600) Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (n = 368) Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (n = 3,898) 0–2 RFs (n = 5,295) 3–5 RFs (n = 5,400) Risk Factor Men, % Abdominal Obesity 18–44 years 45–64 years ≥ 65 years BMI ≥28 kg/m2 18–44 years 45–64 years ≥ 65 years Dyslipidemia 18–44 years 45–64 years ≥ 65 years Hypertension 18–44 years 45–64 years ≥ 65 years Cardiovascular Event 18–44 years 45–64 years ≥ 65 years Number of Risk Factors 0–2 risk factors 3–5 risk factors Mean (SD) BMI = body mass index 38.7% 41.8% 35.4% 43.0% 53.6% 34.7% 32.9% 38.9% 29.1% 26.3% 12.6% 33.2% 41.8% 20.8% 7.3% 26.6% 38.2% 7.5% 1.2% 5.7% 25.5% 80.1% 19.9% 1.3 (1.3) 38.9% 44.9% 44.0% 46.0% 50.0% 36.7% 38.5% 34.4% 25.0% 43.5% 40.9% 46.1% 75.0% 30.4% 24.1% 39.8% 62.5% 16.0% 8.2% 25.8% 87.5% 67.2% 32.8% 1.7 (1.5) 42.3% 86.6% 88.3% 88.6% 83.4% 76.3% 87.3% 82.8% 64.2% 72.7% 60.2% 74.6% 74.5% 67.6% 47.8% 68.2% 73.2% 30.2% 11.7% 25.6% 42.0% 21.7% 78.3% 3.3 (1.2) 34.5% 48.0% 50.9% 44.7% 47.1% 35.7% 42.9% 33.4% 19.9% 19.6% 9.7% 26.9% 32.0% 12.6% 4.0% 15.1% 32.0% 3.8% 1.9% 3.0% 11.5% 100% 0% 1.2 (0.8) 43.1% 95.9% 97.8% 96.8% 93.8% 88.0% 95.9% 92.7% 79.0% 81.2% 74.5% 80.1% 85.5% 76.2% 60.9% 76.3% 83.5% 36.7% 14.2% 28.0% 58.2% 0% 100% 3.8 (0.7) Page 6 of 9 (page number not for citation purposes)