How do Saudi diabetic patients perceive their illness? A multicenter survey using revised-illness perception questionnaire

Abstract

BACKGROUND:Illness perception questionnaires for various medical conditions have become more useful in recent years. However, very few have used this to address the issue of type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia.MATERIALS AND METHODS:This study was conducted among type 2 diabetic patients attending primary healthcare centers and Al Kharj Military Industries Corporation Hospital in Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia, during November 24, 2016, to April 24, 2017. SPSS used for analysis that included descriptive statistics, t-test, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).RESULTS:A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, and 383 of them were returned; response rate about 77%. Majority of participants (80.4%) were educated, 69.5% were married, and 51% were females. About 57% were on OHA, and 57% had no other chronic disease. Most participants perceived that diabetes was hereditary (75%), and 62.4% thought it is due to diet or eating habits. About 80% participants believed that there is a lot they can do to control symptoms. About 73% participants believed they have the power to influence diabetes, whereas 78% think there is very little that can be done to improve diabetes and treatment can control diabetes. The Cronbach's alpha value for identity, timeline (cyclical), and emotional factors were relatively high, showing that these scales had a strong level of internal consistency.CONCLUSION:Saudis with type 2 diabetes mellitus had adequate knowledge of their disease. They agreed that diabetes was likely to be permanent and would have major consequences on their lives.

Retraction Note: Al Kharj diabetic patients’ perception about diabetes mellitus using revised-illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R)

“…The editors have retracted this article [1] because it contains extensive overlap with an article published by the same authors in the Journal of Family & Community Medicine [2] and is therefore redundant. The authors have not responded to correspondence from the editor about this retraction.…”