Hideyo Tsutsui1,2,3, Kyoko Nomura2, Masataka Kusunoki3, Tetsuya Ishiguro3,4, Takayoshi Ohkubo2, Yoshiharu Oshida3. 1. 1General Medical Education and Research Center, Teikyo University, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-8605 Japan. 2. 2Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-8605 Japan. 3. 3Research Center of Health, Physical Fitness, and Sports, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8601 Japan. 4. Ishiguro Internal Medical Clinic, 1-11-1 Asamiya-cho, Kasugai, 486-0846 Japan.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the challenges of self-management of diabetes comparing gender. METHODS: Sixty-four women and 129 men (mean age 63 vs. 60 years) with diabetes mellitus (DM) were interviewed using 12 categories (classification codes b1300, d240, d570, d620, d845, d920, e410 + e414, e420, e425, e465, e560) related to self-care management selected from 99 categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for DM. In a mixed-methods analysis, interviews were analyzed according to the Grounded Theory approach, and gender effects on ICF categories related to self-care management were investigated using logistic models. RESULTS: In quantitative data, compared with men, women tended to experience greater difficulty obtaining foods/ingredients for well-balanced meals to maintain appropriate glucose level (P = 0.004); handling stress and other psychological demands around diabetes treatment (P = 0.034); and social norms, practices, and ideologies that defined an experience of unpleasant treatment after disclosure of DM diagnosis to close family and friends (P = 0.023). Qualitative data shows that women perceived prejudice against people with DM from close family, friends, and neighbors. In contrast, men reported excessive media information on diabetes treatment, which induced prejudice by family members and at the workplace. CONCLUSIONS: Women were more likely to be sensitive to attention from close family and friends, whereas men were more likely to be occupied by work and daily living concerns. Health professionals should pay attention to such gender differences in a patient-professional relationship.
AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the challenges of self-management of diabetes comparing gender. METHODS: Sixty-four women and 129 men (mean age 63 vs. 60 years) with diabetes mellitus (DM) were interviewed using 12 categories (classification codes b1300, d240, d570, d620, d845, d920, e410 + e414, e420, e425, e465, e560) related to self-care management selected from 99 categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for DM. In a mixed-methods analysis, interviews were analyzed according to the Grounded Theory approach, and gender effects on ICF categories related to self-care management were investigated using logistic models. RESULTS: In quantitative data, compared with men, women tended to experience greater difficulty obtaining foods/ingredients for well-balanced meals to maintain appropriate glucose level (P = 0.004); handling stress and other psychological demands around diabetes treatment (P = 0.034); and social norms, practices, and ideologies that defined an experience of unpleasant treatment after disclosure of DM diagnosis to close family and friends (P = 0.023). Qualitative data shows that women perceived prejudice against people with DM from close family, friends, and neighbors. In contrast, men reported excessive media information on diabetes treatment, which induced prejudice by family members and at the workplace. CONCLUSIONS: Women were more likely to be sensitive to attention from close family and friends, whereas men were more likely to be occupied by work and daily living concerns. Health professionals should pay attention to such gender differences in a patient-professional relationship.
Authors: Van Bang Nguyen; Kim Huong Pham Thi; Thi Xuan Nguyen; Nguyen Tuyen Linh Pham; Van Vy Hau Nguyen; Chi Van Le Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 3.752