4.5 Article

A survey of social network status and its related factors for older adults with type 2 diabetes in Beijing, China

期刊

NURSING OPEN
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 1005-1014

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1138

关键词

diabetes mellitus; type 2; older adult; self-management; social network; social support

类别

资金

  1. Beijing Social Science Foundation Project, China [18SRB009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to September 2019 in Beijing to evaluate the social network status of 300 older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The study found that social support, medical payment, self-assessed health status, residential arrangement, and smoking status were associated with the social network level of older adults with T2DM.
Aim: To understand the social network status of older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Beijing, China and explore its related factors. Design: A cross-sectional survey using a sample of convenience was conducted. Methods: From April to September 2019, Lubben Social Network Scale -6 (LSNS-6) was used to evaluate the social network of 300 older adults with T2DM from the outpatient and inpatient departments of three hospitals and five communities in Beijing. Self-designed demographics and clinical sheets, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Scale, Social Support Rating Scale and Geriatric Depression Scale-15 were used to investigate the related factors of their social networks. The Equator Research Checklist used in this study is STROBE checklist. Results: The score of LSNS-6 of the older adults was 16.75 +/- 7.02 (scale: 0 similar to 30), the score of family network dimension was 8.32 +/- 3.63 (scale: 0 - 15), and friends network dimension was 8.43 +/- 4.74 (scale: 0 similar to 15). Additionally, 22.67% of the older adults had social isolation. Social support, medical payment, self-assessed health status, residential arrangement and smoking status were associated with the social network level of the older adults with T2DM (p < .05).

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