D Hessler1, L Fisher1, W Polonsky2, L Strycker3, J Parra1, V Bowyer1, M Dedhia1, U Masharani4. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Behavioural Diabetes Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the effect of targeted interventions to reduce high diabetes distress among adults with Type 1 diabetes with a comparison sample of similar but untreated individuals, and to document the stability of untreated diabetes distress over time. METHODS: A total of 51 adults with Type 1 diabetes with elevated baseline diabetes distress (distress score ≥ 2.0) and HbA1c levels (≥ 58 mmol/mol) were identified from a longitudinal, non-intervention study, and compared with a similar sample of 51 participants in an intervention study. Both groups completed the T1-DDS diabetes distress questionnaire at baseline and 9 months. RESULTS: Large and significant reductions in diabetes distress scores were recorded in the intervention group (mean ± sd change = -0.6 ± 0.6), while minimal change was found in the non-intervention group (-0.2 ± 0.6, group effect P = 0.002; effect size d = 0.67). Additional analyses using the established minimal clinically important difference for the T1-DDS showed that diabetes distress increased significantly (minimal clinically important difference ≥ 1) or persisted at high levels for 51% of participants in the non-intervention group, compared with 23.5% in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that targeted interventions led to dramatic reductions in diabetes distress compared with a lack of treatment. We also conclude that elevated diabetes distress, when left unaddressed, does not resolve over time and often remains chronic. (Clinical Trials Registry no.: NCT02175732).
AIM: To compare the effect of targeted interventions to reduce high diabetes distress among adults with Type 1 diabetes with a comparison sample of similar but untreated individuals, and to document the stability of untreated diabetes distress over time. METHODS: A total of 51 adults with Type 1 diabetes with elevated baseline diabetes distress (distress score ≥ 2.0) and HbA1c levels (≥ 58 mmol/mol) were identified from a longitudinal, non-intervention study, and compared with a similar sample of 51 participants in an intervention study. Both groups completed the T1-DDS diabetes distress questionnaire at baseline and 9 months. RESULTS: Large and significant reductions in diabetes distress scores were recorded in the intervention group (mean ± sd change = -0.6 ± 0.6), while minimal change was found in the non-intervention group (-0.2 ± 0.6, group effect P = 0.002; effect size d = 0.67). Additional analyses using the established minimal clinically important difference for the T1-DDS showed that diabetes distress increased significantly (minimal clinically important difference ≥ 1) or persisted at high levels for 51% of participants in the non-intervention group, compared with 23.5% in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that targeted interventions led to dramatic reductions in diabetes distress compared with a lack of treatment. We also conclude that elevated diabetes distress, when left unaddressed, does not resolve over time and often remains chronic. (Clinical Trials Registry no.: NCT02175732).
Authors: Patricia Davidson; Jacqueline LaManna; Jean Davis; Maria M Ojeda; Suzanne Hyer; Jane K Dickinson; Andrew Todd; Tamara M Hammons; Shahariar Mohammed Fahim; Cassidi C McDaniel; Cynthia A McKee; Jennifer N Clements; Kirsten Yehl; Michelle L Litchman; Julia E Blanchette; Jan Kavookjian Journal: Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care Date: 2022-01-14
Authors: Emil F Coccaro; Sophie Lazarus; Joshua Joseph; Kathline Wyne; Tina Drossos; Louis Phillipson; Mary de Groot Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ingvild Hernar; Marit Graue; David A Richards; Ragnhild B Strandberg; Roy Miodini Nilsen; Magne Rekdal; Karianne Fjeld Løvaas; Tone V Madsen; Grethe S Tell; Anne Haugstvedt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692