ArticlePloS one2024
The potential role of religiosity, psychological immunity, gender, and age group in predicting the psychological well-being of diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia within the Bayesian framework.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association Between Psychological Distress and Glycaemic Control Among Adults with Diabetes Mellitus in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the differences in Religiosity (R), Mental Immunity (MI), and Psychological Well-Being (PWB) in patients with diabetes due to gender and age group variables, and to detect the best predictors of PWB in diabetic patients within the Bayesian framework. The study was conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 on a random sample of 186 Saudis diagnosed with diabetes. After obtaining participants' consent, they completed three R, MI, and PWB scales. Bayesian Independent Samples t-test was performed to identify differences, and Bayesian linear regression analysis was used to reveal the best prediction model of PWB. The results of the Bayesian independent samples t-test indicated strong evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis H1, suggesting differences between male and female diabetic patients in R, MI, and PWB, with Bayesian factor values exceeding 10 (8.338×10+23, 1.762×10+25, and 1.866×10+24), and Cohen's δ of (-1.866, -1.934, -1.884). These results indicated that females with diabetes have higher means of R, MI, and PWB compared to males. However, the results also suggested evidence for the null hypothesis H0 of no differences in R, MI, and PWB among diabetic patients due to age group, with Bayesian factor values (0.176, 0.181, and 0.187) less than 1.00 and small Cohen's δ of (-0.034, -0.050, -0.063). Bayesian linear regression analysis detected strong evidence that the model including MI is the best predictive model (BF10 for mental immunity is 1.00 and for the other two models are 0.07 and 4.249×10-16) for the PWB of diabetic patients, however, there is no evidence that the model including R or the interaction between R and MI is the best predictor of PWB for diabetic patients. These findings highlight the need for direct psychological care services for male diabetic patients and the urgent need to enhance IM in diabetic patients to improve their PWB. Furthermore, results recommended that healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia integrate MI interventions into diabetes care programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.