4.3 Article

No substantial psychological impact of the diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes following targeted population screening: The Hoorn Screening Study

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 992-998

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01276.x

关键词

diagnosis; perceived health status; psychological well-being; screening; Type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To examine the impact of the diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes on psychological well-being and perceived health status in subjects who participated in a targeted population-screening programme. Methods This study was conducted within the framework of a screening project in the general (aged 50-75 years) Dutch population. The final study population consisted of 259 subjects with a high-risk score on the Symptom Risk Questionnaire; 116 of whom were subsequently detected with Type 2 diabetes and 143 who were non-diabetic. The impact was assessed approximately 2 weeks (shortly) and 6 and 12 months after the diagnosis, using the 12-item Well-Being Questionnaire (W-BQ12) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), respectively. Analyses of co-variance (ANCOVA) were used. Results Approximately 2 weeks after the diagnosis, no significant mean differences were found on either the W-BQ12 or the SF-36, between the screening-detected Type 2 diabetes subjects and the non-diabetic subjects. Six months after the diagnosis, we found lower scores in the screening-detected Type 2 diabetes subjects compared with the non-diabetic subjects on the SF-36 dimensions Role Physical (mean difference (95% CI); -8.2 (-16.2; -0.1); P = 0.046) and Role Emotional (mean difference (95% CI); -7.9 (-15.3; -0.5); P = 0.038). One year after the test results, no significant mean differences were found between both groups on either instrument (W-BQ12; SF-36). Conclusions The diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes has no substantial adverse or positive effect on psychological well-being and perceived health status, shortly, and 6 and 12 months after the diagnosis.

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

4.3
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