Social support and diabetes distress among adults with type 2 diabetes covered by Alabama Medicaid

Associations Between Suboptimal Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes Distress in Low-Income Patients on Medicaid

AIMS

To determine associations between suboptimal social determinants of health (SDoH) and diabetes distress in adults with diabetes on Medicaid.

METHODS

We surveyed adults with type 2 diabetes covered by Alabama Medicaid. Diabetes distress was assessed using the Diabetes Distress Scale. Suboptimal SDoH included food or housing insecurity; having < high school degree; being unemployed; and household income < $10,000/year. Unadjusted associations between individual SDoH and diabetes distress were examined using logistic regression. We also examined the association between the number of suboptimal SDoH and distress. Multivariable models controlled for age, sex, race, marital status, rurality, diabetes duration, social support, and insulin use.

RESULTS

In total, 433 patients participated (mean age, 50 years (SD 10.4); 80% female; 62% Black). Roughly 32% reported food insecurity, participants experienced a mean of 2 (SD, 0.9; range 0-5) suboptimal SDoH. There was increased odds of diabetes distress in participants who reported food insecurity (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.36-3.65 and OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.40-3.93). For each additional suboptimal SDoH a patient experienced, they had increased odds of experiencing diabetes distress (OR, 1.50; CI, 1.15-2.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with diabetes who reported food insecurity or experienced a higher number of suboptimal social determinants of health had an increased likelihood of experiencing diabetes distress.

Assessing the relationship between multimorbidity, psychosocial variables, and clinical outcomes among older adults living in rural Appalachia

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between multimorbidity, psychosocial variables, and clinical outcomes among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in rural Appalachia. Point-of-care clinical data (e.g. A1c, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure) and self-reported survey data, that includes psychosocial factors (e.g. distress, depressive symptoms, social support, perceived stress), chronic conditions, and sociodemographic variables were obtained from older adults living in rural Appalachia. Clinical data and psychosocial variables were treated as outcome variables, whereas the number of comorbid conditions was treated as the predictor variable. Stress was significantly associated with multimorbidity (β = 0.24, SE = 0.08, p = 0.01). However, T2D distress, social support, disability, and depression did not have statistically significant relationships with multimorbidity. Further research should assess the role of stress on psychosocial factors and clinical outcomes in rural-dwelling older adults.

Self-Care of Diabetes and Diabetes Distress in Non-Hispanic Black Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to describe the level of self-care of diabetes and diabetes distress and examine their relationship in non-Hispanic Black adults living with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, correlational study was conducted with 275 non-Hispanic Black adults with type 2 diabetes in North Carolina over 10 weeks, July 2022 to September 2022. An online survey collected sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, self-care measures of diabetes, and diabetes distress. The theory of self-care of chronic illness guided the study. Median regression examined the relationship between self-care of diabetes and diabetes distress.

RESULTS

Of the 275 participants, over half reported a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes at younger ages than expected, with a mean age of 40. The self-reported mean A1C of 9% exceeded the recommended goal of <7%, with an average of 2 diabetes-related comorbidities. The self-care of diabetes scale scores were low, and total diabetes distress scores were high. Significant positive associations were found between total diabetes distress and self-care monitoring and self-care management.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, non-Hispanic Black adults had low levels of self-care of diabetes and high levels of diabetes distress. The findings indicate a relationship between self-care of diabetes and diabetes distress; as diabetes distress increases, so do the attempted activities of self-care of diabetes. Health care professionals in diabetes care are uniquely positioned to address further the behavioral aspects of diabetes management, particularly diabetes distress, to support non-Hispanic Black adults living with type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes Distress in Uninsured Patients with Diabetes During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Observational Study

This study assessed diabetes distress (DD) and glycemic control levels through three time periods during the COVID-19 pandemic in uninsured patients with diabetes. Diabetes Distress Screening Scales 2 and 17 were utilized to identify the prevalence of DD among uninsured patients during multiple stages of the COVID-19 pandemic at the Providing Access to Healthcare (PATH) diabetes clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. For the 328 uninsured diabetic patients who were screened for DD at least once, the mean age was 46 years old with a majority being Black (55.5%), male (56.1%), and non-Hispanic (89.9%). Mean scores reflecting patients' level of DD initially increased in the first 6 months of the pandemic, from 2.86 to 3.44, and then decreased after 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic to 3.09, while their mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) followed a similar pattern of initial increase (from 11.31 to 12.13) followed by a decline (to 10.79). Addressing patient concerns quickly through early interventions to provide alternative means of care through telehealth and accommodating safe pick-up of diabetes supplies and medications, including insulin, can reduce DD and contribute to better management of glycemic control. Understanding the potential direct correlation of DD with HbA1c in uninsured patients with diabetes is an important factor for clinicians when providing care to this vulnerable population.

The mediating role of diabetes stigma and self-efficacy in relieving diabetes distress among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter cross-sectional study

Background

Patients with diabetes mellitus often suffer from diabetes distress. Social support and certain psychological factors potentially influence diabetes distress, but studies exploring the mechanisms underlying these relationships are scarce.

Objectives

To reveal the associations between social support, diabetes stigma, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes distress among patients with type 2 diabetes and the underlying mechanisms linking these variables.

Design and methods

A multicenter cross-sectional study was adopted and a sample of 431 patients with type 2 diabetes was investigated. Social support, diabetes stigma, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes distress were surveyed with the Perceived Social Support Scale, Type 2 Diabetes Stigma Assessment Scale, Self-Efficacy for Diabetes Scale, and Diabetes Distress Scale, respectively. The hypothesized model was verified using structural equation modeling.

Results

Social support and diabetes stigma had direct associations with diabetes distress. Diabetes stigma mediated the association between social support and diabetes distress, and the association between diabetes self-efficacy and diabetes distress. Diabetes stigma and self-efficacy exerted a chain mediation effect on the association between social support and diabetes distress.

Conclusion

Social support and diabetes stigma were significant predictors of diabetes distress. Diabetes stigma and self-efficacy play essential mediating roles in relieving diabetes distress. This can provide guidance for the development of evidence- and theory-based interventions. Culturally sensitive interventions that aim to provide ongoing social support, decrease diabetes stigma, and enhance self-efficacy have the potential to relieve diabetes distress.

Are people with diabetes getting the support they need? Deficits between support desired and received from family and friends relates to poorer health

OBJECTIVE

To determine the mismatch of desired support versus support received and to evaluate the impact of these mismatches on health outcomes of people with diabetes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study is a secondary data analysis of medical record and survey data of participants with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes from a diabetes care and education program. Biophysical metrics included HbA1c, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and high- and low-density lipoproteins. Psychosocial and self-care survey outcomes included diabetes distress, diabetes self-care, and diabetes self-efficacy. Support mismatch was a difference score (support desired-support received). Descriptive statistics were computed for demographics, clinical characteristics, and primary outcomes. Multiple linear regressions were computed.

RESULTS

The percentage of participants experiencing support mismatch (surplus/deficits) across six domains was: 15%/27% (foot care), 22%/24% (take medicine), 24%/23% (test blood sugar), 21%/29% (physical activity), and 18%/34% (follow meal plan). Greater support deficits were associated with higher triglyceride levels, increased diabetes distress, and lower diabetes self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that greater support deficits can be a risk factor for some poorer physical and psychosocial health outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions to facilitate functional supportive behaviors are an avenue for future research and clinical practice.

Regional Comparison of Diabetes Psychosocial Comorbidities Among Americans With Type 1 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare diabetes psychosocial comorbidities among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) across the United States during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Adults with T1D from 4 main US geographic regions including South (n = 367), West (n = 234), Northeast (n = 250), and Midwest (n = 247) completed a cross-sectional online survey between April and June 2020. Data collection was done on psychosocial measures, glycemic variability, sociodemographic characteristics, and various challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis tests, ordinary least squares, proportional odds, and ordinal logistic regression methods were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

In the South, 51.2% of participants had moderate to high levels of diabetes distress, and this was significantly (P = .03) higher than other regions. Northeast region had the lowest prevalence of moderate to severe diabetes burnout (19.8%), but this was not significantly different compared to the other regions. Participants in the South had also the highest mean score on the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire, with 30.3% of them reporting moderate to severe depressive symptoms. However, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms among the regions. Glycemic control, demographic characteristics, and COVID-19-related challenges were associated with different psychosocial comorbidities in different regions.

CONCLUSIONS

When providing information and support to individuals with diabetes in time of crisis like the COVID pandemic, providers should consider psychosocial aspects of diabetes care. Diabetes disparities and contextual factors vary geographically in the United States; these factors may impact the psychosocial comorbidities of diabetes in each region.

Diabetes distress and self-reported health in a sample of Alabama Medicaid-covered adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Temporary closures of outpatient health facilities and transitions to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the care of millions of patients with diabetes contributing to worsening psychosocial factors and enhanced difficulty in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus. We explored associations between COVID time period and self-reported diabetes distress on self-reported health among a sample of Alabama Medicaid-covered adults with diabetes pre-COVID (2017-2019) and during-COVID (2020-2021).

Method

In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed a population-based sample of adults with type 2 diabetes covered by the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Participants were dichotomized into pre-COVID (March 2017 to October 2019) vs during-COVID (October 2020 to May 2021) groups. Participants with missing data were removed from analyses. We assessed diabetes related stress by the Diabetes Distress Scale. We measured self-reported health using a single item with a 5-point Likert scale. We ran logistic regressions modeling COVID time period on self-reported poor health controlling for demographics, severity of diabetes, and diabetes distress.

Results

In this sample of 1822 individuals, median age was 54, 74.5% were female and 59.4% were Black. Compared to pre-COVID participants, participants surveyed during COVID were younger, more likely to be Black (64.1% VS 58.2%, p=0.01) and female (81.8% VS 72.5%, p<0.001). This group also had fewer individuals from rural areas (29.2% VS 38.4%, p<0.001), and shorter diabetes duration (7 years VS 9 years, p<0.001). During COVID individuals reported modestly lower levels of diabetes distress (1.2 VS 1.4, p<0.001) when compared to the pre-COVID group. After adjusting for demographic differences, diabetes severity, and diabetes distress, participants responding during COVID had increased odds of reporting poor health (Odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.11-1.80).

Discussion

We found respondents were more likely to report poorer health during COVID compared to pre-COVID. These results suggest that increased outreach may be needed to address diabetes management for vulnerable groups, many of whom were already at high risk for poor outcomes prior to the pandemic.

The Chinese version of the revised Diabetes Distress Scale for adults with type 2 diabetes: Translation and validation study

Objectives

This study aimed to translate the revised 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17, 2017) into mandarin (simplified) Chinese and validate the Chinese version of DDS17 (C-DDS17, 2021) among adult patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

Methods

A scale translation and cross-sectional validation study was conducted. The DDS17 was translated into mandarin (simplified) Chinese through a five-step process: authorization, forward translation, synthesis, back translation, and amendment. During this session, 59 patients assessed the understandability and readability of the translated scale. From June 7 to September 4, 2021, a cross-sectional study that adhered to the COSMIN checklist was conducted with 400 individuals with type 2 diabetes from three Class A tertiary comprehensive hospitals in Beijing, China. The content, construct, convergent, discriminant validity, and reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficient and item-total correlation coefficients) of the C-DDS17 were evaluated. This study was a part of a project registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR2100047071).

Results

Among the participants, 33.3% (133/400) of them experienced moderate to high diabetes distress. The content validity indices of the C-DDS17 equaled 1.00. The scale yielded a four-factor structure. The average variances extracted were 0.42–0.57, which was lower than squared correlations. Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.88 for the overall scale and ranged from 0.76 to 0.81 for sub-scales. Corrected item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.42 to 0.61. The eighth item (“Feeling that I am often failing with my diabetes routine”) was better fit to physician distress than regimen distress but had little influence on the validation results.

Conclusions

The C-DDS17 is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing diabetes distress in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is a promising instrument for early identification and management of diabetes distress in clinical practice and trials.

Clinically significant depressive symptoms and high diabetes distress in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Appalachian Ohio

CONTEXT

In rural southeastern Ohio, the prevalence of diabetes is 19.9%, nearly double the national average of 10.5%. Despite the high rate of diabetes, its impact on the region is understudied; one such understudied topic is psychosocial difficulties. People with diabetes experience disproportionately higher rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), clinically significant depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress. Diabetes distress refers to the negative emotional experience of living with diabetes. It reflects an individual's worries, concerns, and fears about living a chronic and progressive disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of diabetes distress as well as comorbid, clinically significant depressive symptoms and diabetes distress among patients in southeastern Ohio; and to assess impact of depressive symptoms and diabetes distress on A_1C levels, diabetes self care behaviors, and diabetes quality of life (DQOL).

METHODS

In this cross sectional survey study, individuals aged 18 years and older, diagnosed with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes, who were able to read and speak English, and living in southeastern Ohio were invited to participate. Participants completed the Diabetes Distress Scale for T2D or T1D, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Self Care Inventory-Revised, and the DQOL Scale as part of the study survey. Participants completed the survey via an online questionnaire service or mailed packets. Chi square tests determined the comorbidity of clinically significant depressive symptoms and high diabetes distress levels by type of diabetes. Multiple regression models examined the relationships among clinically significant depressive symptoms, diabetes distress scores, A_1C levels, self care behaviors, and DQOL scores. Statistical significance was defined as a p<0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 325 adults participated (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age, 41.6 ± 19.2 years; 131 (40.7%) with T1D; 194 (59.7%) with T2D; mean ± SD A_1C, 7.5 ± 1.6%; mean ± SD duration, 12.4 ± 9.6 years). Of the 325 participants, 70 (21.5%) indicated clinically significant depressive symptoms, with 29 (22.3%) T1D participants and 41 (21.0%) T2D participants reporting clinically significant depressive symptoms. A total of 92 (28.3%) participants reported high diabetes distress (39 (30.5%) T1D participants and 53 (27.5%) T2D participants). Forty-eight participants (15.0%) screened positive for both clinically significant depressive symptoms and high diabetes distress. Regression models showed that higher diabetes distress scores were associated with fewer self care behaviors (T1D, b=-0.268, p=0.030; T2D, b=-0.312, p<0.001) and lower DQOL (T1D, b=0.726, p<0.001; T2D, b=0.501, p<0.001). Further, more depressive symptoms were associated with lower DQOL in participants with T2D (b=0.363, p<0.001). Higher diabetes distress scores were not associated with higher A_1C levels in participants with T1D or T2D; however, increased depressive symptoms were associated with higher A_1C levels in participants with T2D (b=0.390, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings showed that adults in southeastern Ohio experienced high levels of diabetes distress and co-occurring clinically significant depressive symptoms that were within range of data from previous studies. These findings highlight the importance of routine screening for both clinically significant depressive symptoms and diabetes distress. Future longitudinal research is needed to confirm these findings and examine the evolution of these relationships over time.