| Literature DB >> 26064980 |
Jeff C Huffman1, Christina M DuBois2, Rachel A Millstein1, Christopher M Celano1, Deborah Wexler3.
Abstract
Most patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have suboptimal adherence to recommended diet, physical activity, and/or medication. Current approaches to improve health behaviors in T2D have been variably effective, and successful interventions are often complex and intensive. It is therefore vital to develop interventions that are simple, well-accepted, and applicable to a wide range of patients who suffer from T2D. One approach may be to boost positive psychological states, such as positive affect or optimism, as these constructs have been prospectively and independently linked to improvements in health behaviors. Positive psychology (PP) interventions, which utilize systematic exercises to increase optimism, well-being, and positive affect, consistently increase positive states and are easily delivered to patients with chronic illnesses. However, to our knowledge, PP interventions have not been formally tested in T2D. In this paper, we review a theoretical model for the use of PP interventions to target health behaviors in T2D, describe the structure and content of a PP intervention for T2D patients, and describe baseline data from a single-arm proof-of-concept (N = 15) intervention study in T2D patients with or without depression. We also discuss how PP interventions could be combined with motivational interviewing (MI) interventions to provide a blended psychological-behavioral approach.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26064980 PMCID: PMC4442018 DOI: 10.1155/2015/428349
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Res Impact factor: 4.011
Figure 1Conceptual model outlining the proposed mediators between positive affect and improved health behaviors. Note. This model displays relationships in one direction, though there are bidirectional relationships between most constructs (e.g., being more physically active leads to positive affect).
Figure 3Conceptual model for the combination of positive psychology and motivational interviewing to improve physical activity.
Box 2Box 2: Sample introductory page from the PP manual.
Box 3Box 3: Sample exercise rationale and instructions.
Schedule of study events.
| Event | Week | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preenrollment | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | |
| Adherence assessment | X | X | X | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Cognitive screening | X | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Chart review | X | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| PP exercise | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ∗ | |
|
| |||||||||
| PP exercise ratings | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ∗ | |
|
| |||||||||
| Psychological self-report measures | X | X | X | ||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Medical self-report measures | X | X | X | ||||||
∗Week 12 involves review of the final (week 10) exercise and exercise ratings.
Note. GQ-6: Gratitude Questionnaire-6; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; DDS: Diabetes Distress Scale; LOT-R: Life Orientation Test-Revised; MOS SAS: Medical Outcomes Study Specific Adherence Scale items. PROMIS-10: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Item Scale; SDSCA: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure.
Figure 2Flow diagram of enrollment.
Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| Demographics and psychosocial characteristics | |
| Age in years (mean (SD)) | 60.1 (8.8) |
| Male | 6 (40) |
| White | 14 (93.3) |
| Medical history | |
| Hypertension | 14 (93.3) |
| Hyperlipidemia | 10 (66.7) |
| Coronary artery disease | 3 (20) |
| Current smoking | 1 (6.7) |
| Body mass index | 31.03 (5.5) |
| Hemoglobin A1c | 8.7 (1.6) |
| Medications | |
| Aspirin | 11 (73.3) |
| ACE inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker | 10 (66.7) |
| Lipid-lowering agent (e.g., statin) | 13 (86.7) |
| Insulin | 12 (80) |
| Oral hypoglycemic agents | 9 (60) |
| Antidepressants | 6 (40) |
| Baseline psychological self-report measures (mean (SD)) | |
| LOT-R (range 0–24, higher = greater optimism) | 13.0 (6.8) |
| GQ-6 (range 6–42, higher = greater gratitude) | 35.7 (6.7) |
| HADS-D (range 0–21, higher = more depression) | 7.0 (3.7) |
| HADS-A (range 0–21, higher = more anxiety) | 7.9 (4.2) |
| Baseline medical self-report measures (mean (SD)) | |
| MOS SAS (range 3–18, higher = more adherent) | 11.4 (3.4) |
| PROMIS-10 subscales (range 4–20, higher = better health) | |
| Global Physical Health | 11.8 (3.2) |
| Global Mental Health | 10.7 (1.9) |
| DDS subscales (range 1–6, higher = more distress) | |
| Emotional | 3.1 (1.4) |
| Physical | 1.1 (0.1) |
| Regimen | 3.0 (1.4) |
| Interpersonal | 2.4 (1.7) |
| SDSCA subscales (range 0–7, higher = better adherence) | |
| Diet | 4.1 (1.8) |
| Exercise | 1.3 (1.9) |
| Blood sugar | 5.2 (2.4) |
| Foot care | 2.7 (2.8) |
∗All figures are N (%) unless otherwise specified.
Note. ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme; DDS: Diabetes Distress Scale; GQ-6: Gratitude Questionnaire-6; HADS-A: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety Subscale; HADS-D: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression Subscale; LOT-R: Life Orientation Test-Revised; MOS SAS: Medical Outcomes Study Specific Adherence Scale items; PROMIS-10: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Item Scale; SDSCA: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities.
Figure 4Adapted Rounsaville model of behavioral intervention development. Note. Adapted from [153].