3.8 Review

The assessment and management of quality of life of older adults with diabetes mellitus

Journal

EXPERT REVIEW OF ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 71-81

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17446651.2020.1737520

Keywords

Diabetes; elderly; quality of life; diabetes distress; treatment burden; geriatric syndromes

Funding

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Service (HSRD) [PPO 18-051]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: As the population ages, the number of older adults with diabetes mellitus will continue to rise. The burden of diabetes on older adults is significant due to the disease itself, its complications, and its treatments. This is compounded by geriatric syndromes such as frailty and cognitive dysfunction. Consequently, health and diabetes-related quality of life (QoL) are diminished. Areas covered: This article reviews the value of assessing QoL in providing patient-centered care and the associations between QoL measures and health outcomes. The determinants of QoL particular to diabetes and the older population are reviewed, including psychosocial, physical, and cognitive burdens of diabetes and aging and the impact of hypoglycemia on QoL. Strategies are described to alleviate these burdens and improve QoL, and barriers to multidisciplinary patient-centered care are discussed. QoL measurement instruments are reviewed. Expert opinion: The goals of treating diabetes and its complications should be considered carefully along with each patient's capacity to withstand the burdens of treatment. This capacity is reduced by socioeconomic, psychological, cognitive, and physical factors reduces this capacity. Incorporating measurement of HRQoL into clinical practices is possible, but deficiencies in the systems of health-care delivery need to be addressed to facilitate their use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available