Abstract P299: Evaluation of the Knowledge of Risk Factors Related to Diabetes Mellitus in a Cross High-Risk Population Sample

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: Risk factors (RF) for the development of diabetes mellitus (DM) are highly prevalent in high-risk cardiovascular populations. Objective: To evaluate the knowledge of RF in the development of DM in a cross-sectional sample of patients attended at an outpatient clinic of a Cardiology Hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Methods: There were 147 participants (53.7% women), mean age of 63 ± 11.9 years and education level divided into illiteracy (2%), elementary school (44.2%), average (38.1%) and higher school (15.7%). Among the participants, 85% reported hypertension (HY), 25.9% DM and 60.5% previous cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction and/or stroke. Other RF found were: dyslipidemia (46.9%); smoking (10.2%); physical inactivity (66.7%); family history of cardiovascular diseases (52.4%); overweight (25.2%) and obesity (37.4%). A structured questionnaire was applied, evaluating the following question: "In your opinion, what are the FIRST, SECOND and THIRD factor of importance in the development of diabetes?" Results: The first, second and third factors of importance were the following distribution, respectively: excessive sugar intake (68.5%, 23.3% and 8.2%), excessive carbohydrate intake (23.3%, 43.4% (2.8%, 10.9% and 29.3%), stress (2.7%, 6.2% and 17.2%), obesity (0.7%, 7% , 8% and 17.2%), smoke (0.7%, 3.1% and 5.2%), dyslipidemia (uncalculated, 4.7% and 1.7%) and HY (uncalculated, 8% and 1.7%). Thus, the eight RF most cited were inadequate food in sugar (100%) and carbohydrates (85.7%), sedentary lifestyle (44.3%), stress (26.1%), obesity (25.7%), smoking (9%), dyslipidemia (6.4%) and HY (2.5%). It should be noted that the excessive intake of sugar and carbohydrate, sedentary lifestyle, stress and obesity were the most frequently cited RF in a population with a high cardiovascular risk, with a high percentage of sedentary lifestyle and overweight. There was no difference in the percentage of knowledge distribution of RF between DM and non-DM, and between HY and non-HY (p = 0.326). Conclusion: Although participants have demonstrated knowledge of RF, it is evident the need for better strategies to reduce the discrepancy between the knowledge and the high percentage of RF aggregation in this population.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.