ArticleHippokratia
Patient-reported outcome measures in type 1 diabetes outpatient care.
Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess how individuals perceive the disease and its impact on quality of life, representing an important complement to the metabolic evaluation in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). This study aimed to assess the PROMs and their association with metabolic control. Methods: A cross-sectional study of adults with T1DM was conducted in the outpatient Endocrinology department between October 2022 and May 2023. Clinical, demographic, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were collected. Three PROMs were applied: the diabetes psychological adjustment scale (ATT18), the World Health Organization well-being index (WHO-5), and the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Descriptive and bivariate statistical analyses were performed. Results: We included 56 participants, aged 41.2 ± 14.6 years, 58 % female, and 64 % of medium-high socioeconomic class. The disease duration of the cohort was 21 ± 14.6 years, with 44.6 % on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and 39.3 % presenting microvascular complications. Glycated hemoglobin of the cohort was 8.0 ± 1.4 %, time in range (TIR) 52 ± 22 %, coefficient of variation (CV) 37 ± 8 %, and median time below range (TBR) 2 %. Individuals on CSII had higher TIR (p =0.03). CV was related to TBR (ρ =0.643, p <0.001). The majority had satisfactory psychological adjustment to diabetes (ATT18 ≥60), which correlated directly with WHO-5 (r =0.511, p <0.001) and inversely with depression symptoms (r =-0.676, p <0.001). No relationships were identified between metabolic control and PROMs (p =0.63). Conclusions: Including PROMs alongside detailed metabolic evaluation allows for individualized decision-making and active patient participation in diabetes management. These results underscore the importance of preventing depression, promoting well-being, and enhancing diabetes psychological adjustment in these patients, aiming to improve their quality of life. HIPPOKRATIA 2024, 28 (1):17-21.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39399403PMC11466105What 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.