The Detection and Management of Diabetes Distress in People With Type 1 Diabetes

Sturt, Jackie; Dennick, Kathryn; Due‐Christensen, Mette; McCarthy, Kate

doi:10.1007/s11892-015-0660-z

Cited by 123 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 79 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data on prevalence of anxiety and depression came from Mexico; however, the referent for prevalence of distress came mainly from the United States, since these data are not available for Mexican population. At the same time, prevalence of affective disorders (anxiety and depression) found in the present study is similar to the figures reported in similar studies (Fisher et al 2012;Sturt, Dennick, Due-Christensen & McCarthy, 2015;Fisher, Glasgow & Strycker, 2010). In our study, distress in diabetic patients was associated with poor adherence to medication and lack of regular physical exercise.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Distress and its association with self-care in people with type 2 diabetes

Martínez-Vega

Doubova

Pérez‐Cuevas³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Low adherence to diabetes self-care affects glycemic control and increases the risk of diabetes complications and premature deaths. Studies from the United States have found a relationship between distress and adherence to self-care in patients with diabetes; however, there is a lack of research on distress and its association with self-care in Mexican patients with diabetes. Objective. To evaluate the prevalence and association of distress with low self-care in patients with type 2 diabetes. Method. A cross-sectional study was carried out in two family medicine clinics of the Mexican Institute of Social Security in Mexico City. Four hundred eighty-nine type 2 diabetic patients ≥ 19 years of age participated. The statistical analysis incorporated a multiple Poisson regression. Results. Of the patients 18.8% had distress, 44.8% had low adherence to medication, 43.8% had low adherence to regular physical exercise, 82.4% did not consume the recommended amount of vegetables and 51.1% consumed foods with high sugar content. The distress was associated with poor adherence to medication and lack of regular physical exercise. Discussion and conclusion. The high prevalence of distress in type 2 diabetic patients in comparison with the general population reveals the importance of distress screening and health care at family practice clinics

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Distress and its association with self-care in people with type 2 diabetes

Martínez-Vega

Doubova

Pérez‐Cuevas³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Around one quarter of UK adults with diabetes experience elevated, or severe, DD at any given time (Dennick et al, 2016;Sturt, Dennick, Due-Christensen, & McCarthy, 2015). Similar rates are reported elsewhere in Europe (Stoop et al, 2014), Australia (Speight et al, 2011) and the USA (Fisher, Skaff, et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 66%

What is diabetes distress and how can we measure it? A narrative review and conceptual model

Dennick

Sturt

Speight

2017

Journal of Diabetes and its Complications

Self Cite

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDiabetes distress is the negative emotional impact of living with diabetes. It has tangible clinical importance, being associated with sub-optimal self-care and glycemic control. Diabetes distress has been operationalized in various ways and several measures exist. Measurement clarity is needed for both scientific and clinical reasons. ObjectivesTo clarify the conceptualization and operationalization of diabetes distress, identify and distinguish relevant measures, and evaluate their appropriateness for this purpose. ResultsThree measure were identified: Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS); Type I Diabetes Distress Scale (T1-DDS), Diabetes-specific Quality of Life Scale-Revised (DSQoLs-R) 'Burden and Restrictions -Daily Hassles' sub-scale, Well-being Questionnaire 28 (W-BQ 28) 'Diabetes Well-being' sub-scale, and Illness Perceptions Questionnaire -Revised (IPQ-R) 'Emotional Representations' sub-scale. Across these measures a broad spectrum of diabetes distress is captured, including distress associated with treatment regimen, food/eating, future/complications, hypoglycemia, social/interpersonal relationships, and healthcare professionals. No single measure appears fully comprehensive. Limited detail is reported of the qualitative work informing scale design, raising concerns about content validity. ConclusionsAcross the available measures diabetes distress is seemingly comprehensively assessed and measures should be considered in terms of their focus and scope to ensure the foci of interventions are appropriately targeted.

show abstract

“…They included: The Problems Areas in Diabetes (PAID) (20 items) with scores ≥ 40 representing severe diabetes-related distress (12,13), and a score ≥ 30 representing significant diabetes-related distress; The Kessler 10 (K10; 10 items) assessing psychological distress, focusing on depression and anxiety symptoms, ow levels of distress (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15), moderate (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21), high level (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) and very high are defined (14,15); The WHO-5 Well-being Index (5 items) assessing quality of life, with scores ≤ 13 indicative of low well-being, and scores < 8 indicative of depression (16,17) (22), (23) were compared to USA normative data (non-diabetic), and 4 items assessed financial concerns.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%