There is value in treating elevated levels of diabetes distress: the clinical impact of targeted interventions in adults with Type 1 diabetes
Résumé fourni par la source
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: 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).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- There is value in treating elevated levels of diabetes distress: the clinical impact of targeted interventions in adults with Type 1 diabetes
- Date Crossref
- 05/08/2019
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.