4.1 Review

A review of risk factors associated with insulin omission for weight loss in type 1 diabetes

期刊

CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 606-616

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/13591045211026142

关键词

Type 1 diabetes; diabulimia; insulin omission; gender; mental health; anxiety; depression; weight concern; body dissatisfaction; eating disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research suggests that women with T1D are more likely to omit insulin for weight loss, while factors such as anxiety, depression, weight concerns, and body dissatisfaction also contribute to the risk of insulin omission.
Research suggests that as many as 60% of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) admit to misusing insulin. Insulin omission (IO) for the purpose of weight loss, often referred to as diabulimia, is a behaviour becoming increasingly recognised, not least since prolonged engagement can lead to serious vascular complications and mortality. Several risk factors appear to be relevant to the development of IO, most notably gender, anxiety and depression and increased weight concerns and body dissatisfaction. Evidence suggests that women, especially young girls, are more likely to omit insulin as a method of weight loss compared to men. Mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are increasingly prevalent in people with T1D compared to their peers, and appear to contribute to the risk of IO. Increased weight concerns and body dissatisfaction are further prominent risk factors, especially given increases in weight which often occur following diagnosis and the monitoring of weight by diabetes teams. This review presents evidence examining these risk factors which increase the likelihood of a person with T1D engaging in IO and highlights the complications associated with prolongment of the behaviour. Further research looking at the comorbidities of these risk factors, alongside other factors, would provide greater insight into understanding IO in people with T1D.

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

4.1
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