AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Women are at higher risk of diabetes-related cardiovascular complications than men. We tested the hypothesis that there are sex-specific differences in glucometabolic control, and in social and psychological factors. We also examined the influence of these factors on glucometabolic control. METHODS: We examined 257 (126 men/131 women) consecutive patients (64 +/- 9 years, means +/- SD) of a metropolitan diabetes outpatient service employing clinical testing and standardised psychological questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean HbA(1c) (7.6 +/- 1.2%) was not different between women and men. Women patients on oral hypoglycaemic agents were better informed about diabetes (p = 0.012). They employed more strategies for coping with diabetes, including religion (p = 0.0001), active coping (p = 0.048) and distraction (p = 0.007). Women reported lower satisfaction with social support (p = 0.034), but not more depression than men. Although no differences were observed in compliance, insulin-treated patients were more satisfied with their therapy (p = 0.007). Variables predicting poor metabolic control were different in men (R(2) = 0.737, p = 0.012) and women (R(2) = 0.597, p = 0.019). Major predictors of high HbA(1c) included depressive coping, lower sexual desire, quality of life and internal locus of control, but high external doctor-related locus of control in women and frequent emotional experiences of hyperglycaemia in men. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Lower quality of life, internal control and socioeconomic status, and higher prevalence of negative emotions probably prevented woman patients from achieving improved glucose control despite their better knowledge of and greater efforts to cope with diabetes. We suggest that women patients would benefit from individualised diabetes care offering social support, whereas men would benefit from knowledge-based diabetes management giving them more informational and instrumental support.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Women are at higher risk of diabetes-related cardiovascular complications than men. We tested the hypothesis that there are sex-specific differences in glucometabolic control, and in social and psychological factors. We also examined the influence of these factors on glucometabolic control. METHODS: We examined 257 (126 men/131 women) consecutive patients (64 +/- 9 years, means +/- SD) of a metropolitan diabetesoutpatient service employing clinical testing and standardised psychological questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean HbA(1c) (7.6 +/- 1.2%) was not different between women and men. Womenpatients on oral hypoglycaemic agents were better informed about diabetes (p = 0.012). They employed more strategies for coping with diabetes, including religion (p = 0.0001), active coping (p = 0.048) and distraction (p = 0.007). Women reported lower satisfaction with social support (p = 0.034), but not more depression than men. Although no differences were observed in compliance, insulin-treated patients were more satisfied with their therapy (p = 0.007). Variables predicting poor metabolic control were different in men (R(2) = 0.737, p = 0.012) and women (R(2) = 0.597, p = 0.019). Major predictors of high HbA(1c) included depressive coping, lower sexual desire, quality of life and internal locus of control, but high external doctor-related locus of control in women and frequent emotional experiences of hyperglycaemia in men. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Lower quality of life, internal control and socioeconomic status, and higher prevalence of negative emotions probably prevented womanpatients from achieving improved glucose control despite their better knowledge of and greater efforts to cope with diabetes. We suggest that womenpatients would benefit from individualised diabetes care offering social support, whereas men would benefit from knowledge-based diabetes management giving them more informational and instrumental support.
Authors: Murali K Duggirala; Robert M Cuddihy; Maria-Teresa Cuddihy; Mark A Nyman; James M Naessens; V Shane Pankratz Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Enza Gucciardi; Shirley Chi-Tyan Wang; Margaret DeMelo; Lina Amaral; Donna E Stewart Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Sue M Penckofer; Carol Ferrans; Patricia Mumby; Mary Byrn; Mary Ann Emanuele; Patrick R Harrison; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; Patrick Lustman Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2012-10
Authors: Emily C Soriano; James M Lenhard; Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Howard Tennen; Sy-Miin Chow; Amy K Otto; Christine Perndorfer; Biing-Jiun Shen; Scott D Siegel; Jean-Philippe Laurenceau Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16
Authors: K Vedhara; J N V Miles; M A Wetherell; K Dawe; A Searle; D Tallon; N Cullum; A Day; C Dayan; N Drake; P Price; J Tarlton; J Weinman; R Campbell Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Raimund Weitgasser; Peter Fasching; Fritz Hoppichler; Monika Lechleitner Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Christian S Göbl; Latife Bozkurt; Johannes Lueck; Mona El-Samahi; Peter Grösser; Martin Clodi; Anton Luger; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Caroline Sievers; Dorothee M Baur; Anja Schwanke; Michael Buchfelder; Michael Droste; Klaus Mann; Günter K Stalla Journal: Pituitary Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Rebekah J Walker; Brittany L Smalls; Jennifer A Campbell; Joni L Strom Williams; Leonard E Egede Journal: Endocrine Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 3.633