4.6 Article

The association between social capital and quality of life among type 2 diabetes patients in Anhui province, China: a cross-sectional study

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2138-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71273011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To investigate the association between social capital and quality of life among type 2 diabetes patients in Anhui province, China. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 436 adults with type 2 diabetes were interviewed. The two domains of Quality of life, physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), were measured using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). A modified instrument scale was used to measure cognitive and structural social capital. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between social capital and quality of life, adjusting for social economic status and risk factors for health. Results: 24.3 % of participants (106) were in poor PCS and 25.0 % (109) in poor MCS. The proportions of participants who had low cognitive and structural social capital were 47.0 % (205) and 64.4 % (281), respectively. Results of logistic regression models showed that cognitive social capital was positively associated with PCS (OR = 1.84; 95 % CI: 1.12, 3.02) and MCS (OR = 1.65; 95 % CI: 1.03, 2.66). However, the associations between structural social capital and PCS (OR = 0.80, 95 % CI: 0.48, 1.34) and MCS (OR = 0.62; 95 % CI: 0.38, 1.01) were not statistically significant. Conclusions: It is the first study in China to investigate associations between quality of life and social capital in type 2 diabetes. Findings document that cognitive social capital is associated with the quality of life of type 2 diabetes patients. Our study suggests that the social capital theory may provide a new approach to increase physical resources in diabetes prevention and control, especially in Low and Middle Income countries (LMICs).

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

4.6
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