Social Support, Quality of Life, and Self-Care Behaviours Among African Americans With Type 2 Diabetes

University of Michigan, Department of Medical Education, University of Michigan Medical School and Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center, USA.
The Diabetes Educator (Impact Factor: 1.92). 03/2008; 34(2):266-76. DOI: 10.1177/0145721708315680
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine social support and its relationship to diabetes-specific quality of life and self-care behaviors in African Americans with type 2 diabetes.
The study followed a cross-sectional, observational design and recruited 89 African American adults, age 40 and older (mean = 60, SD = 10.5), diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Participants completed measures assessing diabetes-specific quality of life, self-care behaviors (healthy eating, physical activity, self-monitoring of blood glucose, foot care, medication and/or insulin use), demographic background, and diabetes-related social support. Diabetes-related social support variables included amount of social support received, satisfaction with support, positive support behavior, negative support behavior, and primary source of support.
Stepwise regressions, controlling for demographic variables, were conducted to identify predictors of diabetes-specific quality of life and self-care behaviors from the diabetes-related social support variables. Satisfaction with support was a predictor for improved diabetes-specific quality of life (r = -.579, P < .001) and blood glucose monitoring (r = .258, P < .05). Positive support behavior was a predictor for following a healthy eating plan (r = .280, P < .05), spacing out carbohydrates evenly throughout the day (r = .367, P < .01), and performing physical activity at least 30 minutes per day (r = .296, P < .05). Negative support behavior was a predictor for not taking medication as recommended (r = -.348, P < .01).
Findings indicate that social support plays a role in diabetes-specific quality of life and self-management practices. Social support encompasses multiple dimensions that differentially influence specific diabetes health-related outcomes and behaviors.

  • Source
    • "Recent research has discussed healthcare practitioners' support of diabetes self-management in terms of social support (Gleeson-Kreig et al. 2002, Miller & Davis 2005, Gleeson-Kreig 2008, Rosland et al. 2008, Tang et al. 2008). For instance, Tang et al. (2008) found that more than 40% of participants identified their physician as the person who provided the greatest social support in managing their diabetes. According to Stewart (2000), a social support theorist, social support offered by healthcare practitioners includes emotional, affirmational, informational and tangible attributes. "
    European Diabetes Nursing 08/2014; 11(1):43-48.
  • Source
    • "African American women are embedded in social networks that influence health decisions and help-seeking behaviour, and there is evidence that their networks are typically large, highly supportive and consist of extended kin (Brown 2008). While past research has already found social support to be an important resource for African American women with severe medical needs, considerably less is known about the effect of African American women's extended kinship networks on their usage of preventative care services (Tang et al. 2008). Utilisation models have highlighted the role of social networks and support more broadly. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research suggests that African Americans are less likely to utilise preventative care services than Americans of European descent, and that these patterns may contribute to racial health disparities in the United States. Despite the persistence of inequalities in preventative care utilisation, culturally relevant factors influencing the use of these gateway health services have been understudied among marginalised groups. Using a stratified sample of 205 low-income African American women, this research examines the predictors of receiving a physical exam, with a particular emphasis on how differing levels of social support from friend and family networks and experiences of racial discrimination and cultural mistrust shape utilisation. The findings underscore the importance of traditional predictors of utilisation, including insurance status and having a usual physician. However, they also indicate that supportive ties to friendship networks are associated with higher predicted rates of having an annual physical exam, while social support from family and sentiments of cultural mistrust are associated with lower rates of utilisation. Broadly, the findings indicate that even as traditional predictors of help-seeking become less relevant, it will be critical to explore how variations in discrimination experiences and social relationships across marginalised groups drive patterns of preventative care utilisation.
    Sociology of Health & Illness 04/2014; 36(7). DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.12141 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In the context of this paper, social support refers to the nature of interactions occurring in social relationships and how the person evaluates these interactions in terms of their supportiveness (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). A growing body of literature has documented positive relationships between social support and diabetes-related health (Tang et al., 2008). Since type 2 diabetes involves complex daily efforts, it is suggested that people with diabetes need to be supported to maintain and sustain self-management activities in order to live well with the disease. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diabetes-related distress is a prevalent emotional state experienced among people living with type 2 diabetes. It has predominantly been studied in relation to diabetes management and metabolic control and to some extent in relation to perceived social support. Little is known about the relative prospective contribution of clinical variables and perceived support on diabetes-related distress. To investigate the predictive influence of clinical variables and perceived support from health care professionals and family on diabetes-related distress. The study has a prospective, longitudinal design. The participants were recruited from seven general practitioners in the south western part of Norway and from members of the Norwegian Diabetes Association. The sample comprised 296 people with type 2 diabetes. Inclusion criteria were: adults (30-70 years) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who were willing and able to complete a questionnaire written in Norwegian. Data were collected by postal questionnaires assessing perceived support from health care professionals and family and diabetes-related distress measured by the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale at two time points separated by an interval of one year (October 2008 and 2009). Clinical data were collected by self-report. The follow-up group, for which both assessment data were available, constituted our sample comprising 296 adults. Descriptive results and findings from correlations and prospective multivariate associations indicate small changes in diabetes-related distress over a period of one year. In total, multiple regression analyses showed that clinical variables were very weak predictors of diabetes-related distress, whereas perceived social support emerged as statistically significant although a moderate predictor of distress. Among the support variables, only 'constructive support from health care professionals' and 'non-supportive family behaviour' accounted for changes in diabetes-related distress. Findings suggest that diabetes-related distress among adults with type 2 diabetes is relatively stable over time and may be difficult to alter. Health care professionals should therefore be aware that stimulating people to change is challenging and complex. Moreover, they should devote more attention to non-clinical factors such as social support when addressing diabetes-related distress.
    International journal of nursing studies 07/2013; 51(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.06.016 · 2.25 Impact Factor
Show more