Comparison of Metabolic, Lifestyle and Mental Health Parameters in People with Diabetes and Relatives with and without Family Support
Ana Cristina García-Ulloa,Valeria Miranda-Gil,Michelle Díaz-Pineda,María Fernanda Garnica-Carrillo,Nancy Haydée Serrano-Pérez,Maria Sofia Tron-Gomez,Grecia Colorado Báez,Christian Alejandro Cruz Madrigal,Sergio Hernández-Jiménez
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/dmso.s445890
2024-01-19
Diabetes Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity Targets and Therapy
Abstract:Ana Cristina García-Ulloa, 1 Valeria Miranda-Gil, 1 Michelle Díaz-Pineda, 1 María Fernanda Garnica-Carrillo, 1 Nancy Haydée Serrano-Pérez, 1 Maria Sofia Tron-Gomez, 2 Grecia Piedad Colorado Báez, 3 Christian Alejandro Cruz Madrigal, 3 Sergio Hernández-Jiménez 1 for the Group of Study CAIPaDi 1 Centro de Atención Integral del Paciente con Diabetes (CAIPaDi), Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; 2 Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Estado de México, México; 3 Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City, Mexico Correspondence: Sergio Hernández-Jiménez, Vasco de Quiroga No. 15, Colonia Sección XVI, Tlalpan, Mexico City, 14080, Mexico, Tel +1 52 55 54870900 (5045) ; +1 52 55 55737378, Email Purpose: To analyze and compare metabolic, lifestyle and mental health parameters in relatives and people-with-T2DM (PDM) with and without support. Patients and Methods: We included 160 patients with < 5 years of diagnosis of T2DM, without disabling complications, and non-smokers, attending a multidisciplinary program for diabetes control, and their accompanying relatives. If the patients or relatives abandoned the program, we contacted them and asked to take laboratory tests and answer surveys regarding anxiety, depression, and perception of their family support. Variables distribution was assessed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. We used ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis Tests, according to variable distribution. Frequencies and percentages are used for categorical values and analyzed with a chi-square test. We separated the participants in four groups: relatives with and without support and PDM with and without support. Results: We included 160 participants, age 51± 10, and 54.3% women. Total cholesterol (188± 36 vs 204± 43 vs 170± 34 vs 181± 35 mg/dL, p =0.001), LDL-cholesterol (113± 35 vs 125± 27 vs 101 ± 30 vs 109± 29, p =0.008), and non-HDL cholesterol (143± 32 vs 154 ± 30 vs 129± 33 vs 135± 35 mg/dL, p =0.010) were higher in the group without support. Although patients without family support had lower values, they did not achieve metabolic goals. Weight (75± 17 vs 77± 19 vs 74.2± 10.5 vs 90.2± 17.3 kg) and body mass index (28.9± 4.8 vs 30.1± 4.7 vs 27.4± 3.3 vs 33± 4.3 kg/m 2 ) were higher in PDM without family support ( p < 0.001 for both). Conclusion: Support in PDM and their families is important in metabolic control. However, raising awareness among family members to screen for diabetes and changes in lifestyle are points to improve. Including the evaluation of social and family support will allow a more complete assessment to identify barriers to achieving goals. Keywords: family support, social support, relatives, patients, type 2 diabetes Effective management of diabetes requires ongoing medical attention and self-management. These activities include monitoring blood glucose, taking medications, and making lifestyle changes. 1 Family support has shown to be an important factor in the successful treatment of diabetes. Supportive networks facilitate practices for patients to achieve better glycemic control. A negative network can diminish the effort implemented by patients, leading to therapeutic abandonment. 2 If family members share self-care activities with patients, they may benefit from better metabolic control in contrast to a patient without support. 3 It provides emotional, physical, and logistical support to individuals living with chronic metabolic diseases. 3,4 Individuals with diabetes who receive family and friend support are more likely to have better blood glucose control, higher rates of medication adherence, and better quality of life. 5–7 Support may also be associated with shared disease burden. 2 Including relatives in diabetes education and treatment is critical since they affect the environment in which the patient develops. It is known that active support from relatives improves self-management, diabetes care, and long-term outcomes. Their involvement must include emotional support and practical actions in diabetes care. 8 Despite the well-established benefits of family support in diabetes management, there are several barriers that may prevent individuals from receiving adequate support. These barriers may include a lack of understanding or knowledge about diabetes, conflicting beliefs or values about diabetes self-management, and inadequate social or financial resources. 3,4 Additionally, certain cultural and societal norms may discourage individuals from seeking o -Abstract Truncated-
endocrinology & metabolism