scholarly journals Diabetes Distress and Glycemic Control: The Buffering Effect of Autonomy Support From Important Family Members and Friends

Diabetes Care ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1157-1163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron A. Lee ◽  
John D. Piette ◽  
Michele Heisler ◽  
Ann-Marie Rosland
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Schmitt ◽  
Eileen Bendig ◽  
Harald Baumeister ◽  
Norbert Hermanns ◽  
Bernhard Kulzer

2021 ◽  
pp. 109980042110096
Author(s):  
Ruey-Hsia Wang ◽  
Chia-Chin Lin ◽  
Shi-Yu Chen ◽  
Hui-Chun Hsu ◽  
Chiu-Ling Huang

Purposes: Women with diabetes (WD) are more severely impacted by the consequence of suboptimal diabetes control. This study aims to examine the impact of demographic and disease characteristics, baseline self-stigma, role strain, diabetes distress on Hemoglobin A1C (A1C) levels, quality of life (D-QoL) and 6-month A1C levels in younger WD. Methods: This study was a 6-month prospective study. In total, 193 WD aged 20–64 years were selected by convenience sampling from three outpatient clinics in Taiwan. Demographic and disease characteristics, self-stigma, role strain, diabetes distress, A1C levels, and D-QoL were collected at baseline. A1C levels were further collected 6 months later. Structural equation modeling was conducted to test the hypothesized model. Results: The final model supported that higher baseline D-QoL directly associated with lower concurrent A1C levels and indirectly associated with lower 6-month A1C levels through baseline A1C levels. Higher baseline self-stigma, role strain, and diabetes distress directly associated with lower baseline D-QoL, and indirectly associated with higher 6-month A1C levels through D-QoL. Conclusion: Improving self-stigma, role strain, and diabetes distress should be considered as promising strategies to improve D-QoL in young WD. D-QoL plays a mediation role between baseline self-stigma, role strain, diabetes distress and subsequent glycemic control in younger WD. Enhancing baseline D-QoL is fundamental to improve subsequent glycemic control.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e001934
Author(s):  
Anne M Doherty ◽  
Anne Herrmann-Werner ◽  
Arann Rowe ◽  
Jennie Brown ◽  
Scott Weich ◽  
...  

IntroductionThis study examines the feasibility of conducting diabetes-focused cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) via a secure online real-time instant messaging system intervention to support self-management and improve glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.Research design and methodsWe used a pre–post uncontrolled intervention design over 12 months. We recruited adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (DCCT 8.5%) for 12 months) across four hospitals in London. The intervention comprised 10 sessions of diabetes-focused CBT delivered by diabetes specialist nurses. The primary outcomes were number of eligible patients, rates of recruitment and follow-up, number of sessions completed and SD of the main outcome measure, change in HbA1c over 12 months. We measured the feasibility of collecting secondary outcomes, that is, depression measured using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), anxiety measured Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS).ResultsWe screened 3177 patients, of whom 638 were potentially eligible, from whom 71 (11.1%) were recruited. The mean age was 28.1 (13.1) years, and the mean HbA1c was 84.6 mmol/mol (17.8), DCCT 9.9%. Forty-six (65%) patients had at least 1 session and 29 (41%) completed all sessions. There was a significant reduction in HbA1c over 12 months (mean difference −6.2 (2.3) mmol/mol, DCCT 0.6%, p=0.038). The change scores in PHQ-9, GAD and DDS also improved.ConclusionsIt would be feasible to conduct a full-scale text-based synchronized real-time diabetes-focused CBT as an efficacy randomized controlled trial.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e001018
Author(s):  
Qingping Yun ◽  
Ying Ji ◽  
Shenglan Liu ◽  
Yang Shen ◽  
Xuewen Jiang ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess whether social support or autonomy support intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes can achieve glycemic control at the end of intervention, and to test whether the glycemic control effect can be maintained for a long time.Research design and methodsIn this cluster randomized controlled trial, 18 community healthcare stations (CHSs) were randomized to the following: (1) usual care group (UCG) offering regular public health management services, (2) social support group (SSG) providing 3-month social support intervention based on problem solving principles, and (3) autonomy support group (ASG) offering 3-month autonomy support intervention based on self-determination theory. A total of 364 patients registered in the CHSs were enrolled into either of the three groups. The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and secondary outcomes were diabetes self-management (DSM) behaviors. Assessment was conducted at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.ResultsPatients in ASG achieved better HbA1c reduction at the end of intervention (0.53% or 7.23 mmol/mol, p<0.001) than those in the UCG and successfully maintained it up to 6 months (0.42% or 5.41 mmol/mol, p<0.001). However, patients in SSG did not experience significant change in HbA1c at 3 or 6 months when compared with patients in UCG. Besides, patients in both the SSG (0.12, p<0.05) and ASG (0.22, p<0.001) experienced improvement in exercise at 3 months. Patients in ASG sustained improvement in exercise up to 6 months (0.21, p<0.001), but those in the SSG did not.ConclusionsAutonomy support for patients with type 2 diabetes could help achieve glycemic control at the end of intervention and successfully maintain it up to 6 months. These findings indicate that autonomy support has positive long-term effects on DSM behaviors and glycemic control and can be recommended in future diabetes intervention programs.Trial registration numberChiCTR1900024354.


Diabetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 584-P
Author(s):  
JACLYNN M. HAWKINS ◽  
NIKOLAS J. KOSCIELNIAK ◽  
ROBIN NWANKWO ◽  
MARTHA M. FUNNELL ◽  
KATHERINE A. KLOSS ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Emily C Soriano ◽  
James M Lenhard ◽  
Jeffrey S Gonzalez ◽  
Howard Tennen ◽  
Sy-Miin Chow ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Spouses often attempt to influence patients' diabetes self-care. Spousal influence has been linked to beneficial health outcomes in some studies, but to negative outcomes in others. Purpose We aimed to clarify the conditions under which spousal influence impedes glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Spousal influence was hypothesized to associate with poorer glycemic control among patients with high diabetes distress and low relationship quality. Methods Patients with type 2 diabetes and their spouses (N = 63 couples) completed self-report measures before patients initiated a 7-day period of continuous glucose monitoring. Mean glucose level and coefficient of variation (CV) were regressed on spousal influence, diabetes distress, relationship quality, and their two- and three-way interactions. Results The three-way interaction significantly predicted glucose variability, but not mean level. Results revealed a cross-over interaction between spousal influence and diabetes distress at high (but not low) levels of relationship quality, such that spousal influence was associated with less variability among patients with low distress, but more among those with high distress. Among patients with high distress and low relationship quality, a 1 SD increase in spousal influence predicted a difference roughly equivalent to the difference between the sample mean CV and a CV in the unstable glycemia range. Conclusions This was the first study to examine moderators of the link between spousal influence and glycemic control in diabetes. A large effect was found for glucose variability, but not mean levels. These novel results highlight the importance of intimate relationships in diabetes management.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 797-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulla M. Hansen ◽  
Timothy Skinner ◽  
Kasper Olesen ◽  
Ingrid Willaing

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel N. Baek ◽  
Molly L. Tanenbaum ◽  
Jeffrey S. Gonzalez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document