4.5 Article

Glycemia and the quality of well-being in patients with diabetes

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 1153-1161

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000031336.81580.52

关键词

clinical economics; cost-effectiveness; diabetes mellitus; health utilities; hemoglobin A1c; hyperglycemia; hypoglycemia; quality-adjusted life-years

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the cross-sectional relationships among self-reported frequencies of symptomatic hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, HbA1c, and symptoms in the Quality of Well-Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA), and to examine the associations among these measures of glycemia and health-utility scores. Methods: The study group included 1522 patients with diabetes who attended University of Michigan Health System clinics. Published studies were reviewed to identify symptoms in the QWB-SA that might be associated with measures of glycemia. Linear-regression analyses were performed to evaluate the strength of the associations among the frequency of self-reported measures of glycemia, QWB-SA symptoms, and QWB-SA-derived health-utility scores. Results: Frequency of hyperglycemic symptoms was associated with 3% of the variance in the QWB-SA-derived health-utility score in type-1 diabetes and with 5% of the variance in type-2 diabetes. Frequency of hypoglycemic symptoms was not associated with the QWB-SA-derived health-utility score in type-1 diabetes but was associated with 1% of the variance in type-2 diabetes. HbA1c levels were not significantly associated with QWB-SA-derived health-utility scores. After controlling for age, gender, and complications, frequency of hyperglycemic symptoms was significantly associated with QWB-SA-derived health-utility scores in type-1 and type-2 diabetes. Conclusions: Reported frequency of hyperglycemic symptoms is associated with symptoms included in the QWB-SA and with QWB-SA-derived health-utility scores. The QWB-SA may be an appropriate measure to assess the health burden of hyperglycemia.

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