4.5 Article

Medication adherence on quality of life among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an exploratory analysis on the EDDMQoL study

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 2723-2731

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1006-7

关键词

Medication adherence; Quality of life; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Primary care

资金

  1. Research University Grants Scheme 2 [RUGS/04-02-2105RU]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study examined the association between medication adherence (MA) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among the adult type 2 diabetes mellitus at the primary care level. Methods In this cross-sectional study, the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) was the main independent variable and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief the dependent variable. Besides socio-demographic data, diabetes-related distress (DRD) and depression (DS) were included as covariates. Independent association between the MMAS score and HRQoL was done using multiple linear regression. Results The participants' response rate was 93.1 % (700/752). Majorities were female (52.8 %), Malay (52.9 %) and married (79.1 %). The mean (SD) for age and the MMAS score was 56.9 (10.18) and 5.6 (1.42), respectively. MMAS total score correlated significantly with all HRQoL domains: overall QoL (OQoL) (r = 0.17), physical QoL (r = 0.11), psychological QoL (r = 0.10), social relationship QoL (r = 0.15) and environmental QoL (EQoL) (r = 0.18). After adjustment for covariates (age, gender, ethnicity, religion, education, income, exercise, macrovascular complications, DRD and DS), MA had persistent effects on OQoL (B = 0.53, 95 % CI 0.012-1.048) and EQoL (B = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.235-1.667). Conclusion MA showed prevalent correlation and positive effects on the domains of HRQoL. Despite the small effects of MA on HRQoL, the sheer presence of the independent effects provides healthcare providers good reason for initiative and intervention to improve MA, which would improve quality of life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据