Aaron A Lee1, John D Piette2,3,4, Michele Heisler2,3,4,5, Ann-Marie Rosland6,7. 1. VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI aaronlee@med.umich.edu. 2. VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 6. VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether autonomy support (defined as social support for an individual's personal agency) for diabetes management from informal health supporters (family/friends) reduces the detrimental effects of diabetes distress on glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred eight veterans with type 2 diabetes and one or more risk factors for diabetes complications completed a survey that included measures of diabetes distress and perceived autonomy support from their main informal health supporter. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) data from 12 months before and after the survey were extracted from electronic medical records. Linear mixed modeling examined the main effects and interaction of autonomy support and diabetes distress on repeated measures of HbA1c over the 12 months after the survey, controlling for mean prior 12-month HbA1c, time, insulin use, age, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Diabetes distress (B = 0.12 [SE 0.05]; P = 0.023) was associated with higher and autonomy support (B = -0.16 [SE 0.07]; P = 0.032) with lower subsequent HbA1c levels. Autonomy support moderated the relationship between diabetes distress and HbA1c (B = -0.13 [SE 0.06]; P = 0.027). Greater diabetes distress was associated with higher HbA1c at low (B = 0.21 [SE 07]; P = 0.002) but not high (B = 0.01 [SE 0.07]; P = 0.890) levels of autonomy support. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy support from main health supporters may contribute to better glycemic control by ameliorating the effects of diabetes distress. Interventions that reduce diabetes distress and enhance the autonomy supportiveness of informal supporters may be effective approaches to improving glycemic control.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether autonomy support (defined as social support for an individual's personal agency) for diabetes management from informal health supporters (family/friends) reduces the detrimental effects of diabetes distress on glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred eight veterans with type 2 diabetes and one or more risk factors for diabetes complications completed a survey that included measures of diabetes distress and perceived autonomy support from their main informal health supporter. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) data from 12 months before and after the survey were extracted from electronic medical records. Linear mixed modeling examined the main effects and interaction of autonomy support and diabetes distress on repeated measures of HbA1c over the 12 months after the survey, controlling for mean prior 12-month HbA1c, time, insulin use, age, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS:Diabetes distress (B = 0.12 [SE 0.05]; P = 0.023) was associated with higher and autonomy support (B = -0.16 [SE 0.07]; P = 0.032) with lower subsequent HbA1c levels. Autonomy support moderated the relationship between diabetes distress and HbA1c (B = -0.13 [SE 0.06]; P = 0.027). Greater diabetes distress was associated with higher HbA1c at low (B = 0.21 [SE 07]; P = 0.002) but not high (B = 0.01 [SE 0.07]; P = 0.890) levels of autonomy support. CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy support from main health supporters may contribute to better glycemic control by ameliorating the effects of diabetes distress. Interventions that reduce diabetes distress and enhance the autonomy supportiveness of informal supporters may be effective approaches to improving glycemic control.
Authors: Margaret A Powers; Joan Bardsley; Marjorie Cypress; Paulina Duker; Martha M Funnell; Amy Hess Fischl; Melinda D Maryniuk; Linda Siminerio; Eva Vivian Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: W H Polonsky; B J Anderson; P A Lohrer; G Welch; A M Jacobson; J E Aponte; C E Schwartz Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lawrence Fisher; Danielle Hessler; Russell E Glasgow; Patricia A Arean; Umesh Masharani; Diana Naranjo; Lisa A Strycker Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Michelle L Litchman; Heather R Walker; Ashley H Ng; Sarah E Wawrzynski; Sean M Oser; Deborah A Greenwood; Perry M Gee; Mellanye Lackey; Tamara K Oser Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-03-10
Authors: Aaron A Lee; Michele Heisler; Ranak Trivedi; D Scott Obrosky; Maria K Mor; John D Piette; Ann-Marie Rosland Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-10-04
Authors: Caroline A Presley; Favel L Mondesir; Lucia D Juarez; April A Agne; Kevin R Riggs; Yufeng Li; Maria Pisu; Emily B Levitan; Janet M Bronstein; Andrea L Cherrington Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.359