Experience from a behavioural medicine intervention among poorly controlled adult type 1 diabetes patients.
ABSTRACT To describe experience from a behavioural medicine intervention among poorly controlled adult type 1 diabetes patients, in terms of feasibility, predictors and associations of improved glycaemic control.
Data were collected on 94 poorly controlled adult type 1 diabetes patients who were randomised to a study evaluating the effects of a behavioural medicine intervention. Statistics covered descriptive and comparison analysis. Backward stepwise regression models were used for predictive and agreement analyses involving socio-demographic and medical factors, as well as measures of diabetes self-efficacy (DES), diabetes locus of control (DLOC), self-care activities (SDSCA), diabetes-related distress (Swe-PAID-20), fear of hypoglycaemia (HFS), well-being (WBQ), depression (HAD) and perceived stress (PSS).
The participation rate in the study was 41% and attrition was 24%. Of those patients actually participating in the behavioural medicine intervention, 13% withdrew. From the regression models no predictors or associations of improvement in HbA(1c) were found.
The programme proved to be feasible in terms of design and methods. However, no clear pattern was found regarding predictors or associations of improved metabolic control as the response to the intervention. Further research in this area is called for.
- SourceAvailable from: fidam.de[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We compared the screening performance of different measures of depression: the standard clinical assessment (SCA); the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); the Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D); and the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire, which assesses diabetes-specific distress. We also studied the ability of these measures to detect diabetes-related distress. A total of 376 diabetic patients (37.2% type 1; 23.9% type 2 without insulin treatment, 38.8% type 2 with insulin) completed the BDI and CES-D; patients who screened positive participated in a diagnostic interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Also, all patients completed the PAID questionnaire. Results of the SCA that related to depression diagnosis were reviewed to correct for false negative screening results. The prevalence of clinical depression was 14.1%, with an additional 18.9% of patients receiving a diagnosis of subclinical depression. Sensitivity for clinical depression in SCA (56%) was moderate, whereas BDI, CES-D and the PAID questionnaire showed satisfactory sensitivity (87, 79 and 81%, respectively). For subclinical depression, the sensitivity of the PAID questionnaire (79%) was sufficient, whereas that of SCA (25%) was poor. All methods showed low sensitivity for the detection of diabetes-specific emotional problems (SCA 19%, CIDI 34%, BDI 60%, CES-D 49%). The screening performance of SCA for clinical and subclinical depression was modest. Additional screening for depression using the PAID or another depression questionnaire seems reasonable. The ability of depression screening measures to identify diabetes-related distress is modest, suggesting that the PAID questionnaire could be useful when screening diabetic patients for both depression and emotional problems.Diabetologia 04/2006; 49(3):469-77. · 6.49 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review the literature estimating the cross-sectional prevalence of clinical depression in adults with Type 1 diabetes. Electronic databases and published references were used to identify studies published between January 2000 and June 2004, with a previous meta-analysis used to identify studies before 1 January 2000. Between January 2000 and June 2004, a further five eligible studies were identified. Only one was a controlled study using diagnostic interviewing to determine rates of depression. Taking all of the eligible studies identified by the previous meta-analysis and this search, the prevalence of clinical depression in controlled studies was 12.0% for people with diabetes compared with 3.2% for control subjects. In studies with no control group, the prevalence of clinical depression was 13.4%. There are wide-ranging differences reported in the various studies on the prevalence of depression in Type 1 diabetes. In view of the differing methods of diagnosis and small participant numbers, the results should be viewed with caution. A controlled study using diagnostic interviewing techniques to determine levels of depression is recommended to provide a clearer picture of both the prevalence and characteristics of that depression.Diabetic Medicine 05/2006; 23(4):445-8. · 3.24 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004. All included studies were randomised controlled trials in children (including adolescents) or adults with type 1 diabetes that evaluated the effect of a psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy, family systems therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) on control of diabetes. Data were extracted on sample size, age, duration of diabetes, type of psychological therapy, its mode of delivery, and type of intervention in control group. Glycaemic control measured by percentage of glycated haemoglobin and psychological distress. Pooled standardised effect sizes were calculated. 29 trials were eligible for the systematic review and 21 trials for the meta-analysis. In the 10 studies of children and adolescents included in the meta-analysis, the mean percentage of glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced in those who had received a psychological intervention compared with those in the control group (pooled standardised mean difference -0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.66 to -0.04), equivalent to a 0.48% (0.05% to 0.91%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. In the 11 studies in adults the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), equivalent to 0.22% (-0.13% to 0.56%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. Psychological distress was significantly lower in the intervention groups in children and adolescents (pooled standardised effect size -0.46, -0.83 to -0.10) but not in adults (-0.25, -0.51 to 0.01). Psychological treatments can slightly improve glycaemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes but have no effect in adults.BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 08/2006; 333(7558):65.