Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Relation to Deprivation, Gender, and Age in a New Community-Based Model of Care
2011

Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Sample size: 136 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Lindsay Grace, Inverarity Kathryn, McDowell Joan R. S.

Primary Institution: NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Acute Division, Nursing, Midwifery and Community Health School, Glasgow Caledonian University

Hypothesis

To evaluate changes in health related quality of life (HRQL) for individuals with Type 2 diabetes following the introduction of a new community-based model of care.

Conclusion

HRQL and distress associated with diabetes remained stable following the introduction of the new community-based model of care except for deterioration in the bodily pain domain and deteriorating PAID scores for older patients.

Supporting Evidence

  • Overall HRQL and PAID scores were lower than published levels in individuals with diabetes but remained stable during the transition to the new model of care.
  • Deterioration was observed in males, most notably mental health, in patients aged 54 years or less and 75 years or more.
  • HRQL was lowest at baseline and follow-up in socio-economic groups 6 & 7.

Takeaway

This study looked at how people's quality of life changed after a new way of caring for diabetes was introduced, and found that most people's quality of life stayed the same, except for some older patients who felt more pain.

Methodology

A before and after study design using validated questionnaires to assess HRQL and emotional distress before and 18 months after the new service implementation.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to self-reported data and the non-random selection of participants.

Limitations

The sample may not be representative of the full LHCC patient group due to demographic differences.

Participant Demographics

Participants included 136 individuals with Type 2 diabetes from a local health care cooperative, with a mix of genders and ages.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.02

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1155/2011/613589

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication