Background: Differences in type 2 diabetes risk have been reported for several sociodemographic determinants including sex/gender or socioeconomic status. From an intersectional perspective, it is important to not only consider the role of social dimensions individually, but also their intersections. This allows for a deeper understanding of diabetes risk and preventive needs among diverse population groups.

Methods: As an intersectionality-informed approach, multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) was used in a population-based sample of adults without known diabetes in Germany from the cross-sectional survey “Disease knowledge and information needs– Diabetes mellitus (2017)”. Diabetes risk was assessed by the German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS, range 0-122 points), estimating the individual risk of developing type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years based on established self-reported risk factors. Nesting individuals in 12 intersectional strata defined by combining sex/gender, educational level, and history of migration, we calculated measures to quantify the extent to which individual differences in diabetes risk were explained at strata level, and how much this was due to additive or multiplicative intersectional effects of social determinants.

Results: Drawing on data of 2,253 participants, we found good discriminatory accuracy of intersectional strata (variance partition coefficient = 14.00% in the simple intersectional model). Model-predicted GDRS means varied between 29.97 (corresponding to a “low risk” of < 2%) in women with high educational level and a history of migration, and 52.73 (“still low risk” of 2–5%) in men with low educational level without a history of migration. Variance in GDRS between strata was mainly explained by additive effects of social determinants (proportional change in variance to intersectional interaction model = 77.95%) with being male and having low educational level being associated with higher GDRS. There was no evidence of multiplicative effects in individual strata.

Conclusions: Type 2 diabetes risk differed between intersectional strata and can to some extent be explained at strata level. The role of intersectional effects was minor and needs to be further investigated. Findings suggest a need for specific preventive measures targeted at large groups with increased diabetes risk, such as men and persons with low educational level.