Ulla M Hansen1,2, Timothy Skinner3, Kasper Olesen1, Ingrid Willaing4. 1. Diabetes Management Research, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Gentofte, Denmark. 2. National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Diabetes Management Research, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Gentofte, Denmark ingrid.willaing.tapager@regionh.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore relationships between work-related factors, work-related diabetes distress (WRDD), diabetes distress (measured by Problem Areas in Diabetes [PAID]-5 scale), intentional hyperglycemia at work (IHW), and glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 1,030 working adults with type 1 diabetes and linked with electronic health record data from a specialist diabetes clinic in Denmark. With use of structural equation modeling, two alternative models were compared, based on fit indices, statistical significance, and theoretical meaningfulness. RESULTS: A combined model provided the best fit to the data. WRDD was more strongly affected by work ability, opportunity to self-manage at work, being treated differently, and job demands. PAID-5 was more strongly affected by identity concern and blame and judgment. Both PAID-5 and WRDD were associated with more frequent IHW, which was associated in turn with worse glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related factors are associated with WRDD and PAID-5. Distress increases the frequency of IHW, which is, in turn, associated with worse glycemic control. Future studies should investigate ways to balance diabetes management and work life without compromising diabetes care.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore relationships between work-related factors, work-related diabetes distress (WRDD), diabetes distress (measured by Problem Areas in Diabetes [PAID]-5 scale), intentional hyperglycemia at work (IHW), and glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 1,030 working adults with type 1 diabetes and linked with electronic health record data from a specialist diabetes clinic in Denmark. With use of structural equation modeling, two alternative models were compared, based on fit indices, statistical significance, and theoretical meaningfulness. RESULTS: A combined model provided the best fit to the data. WRDD was more strongly affected by work ability, opportunity to self-manage at work, being treated differently, and job demands. PAID-5 was more strongly affected by identity concern and blame and judgment. Both PAID-5 and WRDD were associated with more frequent IHW, which was associated in turn with worse glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related factors are associated with WRDD and PAID-5. Distress increases the frequency of IHW, which is, in turn, associated with worse glycemic control. Future studies should investigate ways to balance diabetes management and work life without compromising diabetes care.