4.7 Article

Factors Associated With Diabetes-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: The Global TEENs Study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 40, 期 8, 页码 1002-1009

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc16-1990

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanofi Diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE Our objective was to characterize diabetes-specific health-related quality of life (D-HRQOL) in a global sample of youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and to identify the main factors associated with quality of life. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The TEENs study was an international, cross-sectional study of youth, 8-25 years of age, with T1D. Participants (N=5,887) were seen in clinical sites in 20 countries across 5 continents enrolled for 3 predetermined age groups: 8-12, 13-18, and 19-25 years of age. To assess D-HRQOL, participants completed the PedsQL DiabetesModule 3.0 and were interviewed about family-related factors. Specifics about treatment regimen and self-management behaviors were collected from medical records. RESULTS Across all age groups, females reported significantly lower D-HRQOL than did males. The 19-25-year age group reported the lowest D-HRQOL. Multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that D-HRQOL was significantly related to HbA(1c); the lower the HbA(1c), the better the D-HRQOL. Three diabetes-management behaviors were significantly related to better D-HRQOL: advanced methods used to measure food intake; more frequent daily blood glucose monitoring; and more days per week that youth had >= 30 min of physical activity. CONCLUSIONS In all three age groups, the lower the HbA(1c), the better the D-HRQOL, underscoring the strong association between better D-HRQOL and optimal glycemic control in a global sample of youth and young adults. Three diabetes-management behaviors were also related to optimal glycemic control, which represent potentially modifiable factors for clinical interventions to improve D-HRQOL as well as glycemic control.

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

4.7
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