TABLE 4.
Association between UO and the participants' self‐management
| (n = 450) | Regular self‐monitoring of body weight a | Wound checking a | Regular self‐monitoring of blood sugar a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR [95% CI] | P‐value | OR [95% CI] | P‐value | OR [95% CI] | P‐value | |
| Model 1 | ||||||
| UO | 0.64 [0.37; 1.12] | .121 | 1.06 [0.61; 1.87] | .827 | 1.13 [0.62; 2.04] | .682 |
| Self‐view | ||||||
| Average | 0.98 [0.51; 1.87] | .941 | 0.75 [0.39; 1.44] | .394 | 1.14 [0.58; 2.30] | .707 |
| Positive | 1.70 [0.70; 4.11] | .236 | 0.94 [0.39; 2.28] | .898 | 1.20 [0.48; 3.07] | .697 |
| Model 2 | ||||||
| UO | 0.66 [0.32; 1.35] | .26 | 0.68 [0.32; 1.47] | .334 | 0.71 [0.29; 1.71] | .451 |
| Self‐view | ||||||
| Average | 1.07 [0.52; 2.16] | .861 | 1.04 [0.50; 2.18] | .911 | 2.03 [0.87; 4.97] | .11 |
| Positive | 1.78 [0.61; 5.24] | .292 | 1.98 [0.63; 6.32] | .243 | 4.18 [1.11; 16.48] | .037 |
| Regular self‐monitoring of blood pressure a | Keeping a diabetes diary a | Having a diet plan a | Sum‐score b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR [95% CI] | P‐value | OR [95% CI] | P‐value | OR [95% CI] | P‐value | β [95% CI] | P‐value | |
| Model 1 | ||||||||
| UO | 0.58 [0.33; 1.03] | .064 | 1.20 [0.63; 2.21] | .568 | 0.80 [0.22; 2.32] | .708 | −0.26 [−0.72; 0.20] | .273 |
| Self‐view | ||||||||
| Average | 1.12 [0.59; 2.15] | .729 | 1.00 [0.48; 2.21] | .995 | 0.64 [0.23; 2.05] | .407 | 0.00 [−0.53; 0.53] | .999 |
| Positive | 2.15 [0.89; 5.23] | .091 | 0.80 [0.30; 2.24] | .665 | 1.13 [0.25; 6.10] | .878 | 0.37 [−0.34; 1.09] | .308 |
| Model 2 | ||||||||
| UO | 0.57 [0.27; 1.18] | .133 | 0.73 [0.29; 1.76] | .481 | 0.35 [0.08; 1.30] | .136 | −0.45 [−1.00; 0.10] | .107 |
| Self‐view | ||||||||
| Average | 1.32 [0.64; 2.73] | .457 | 1.63 [0.66; 4.29] | .303 | 0.99 [0.32; 3.60] | .992 | 0.26 [−0.26; 0.79] | .324 |
| Positive | 2.86 [0.95; 8.73] | .063 | 2.25 [0.58; 9.26] | .249 | 3.71 [0.60; 27.42] | .176 | 0.94 [0.12; 1.76] | .025 |
Note: Model 1 included the variables UO and self‐view; Model 2 included UO, self‐view, age, sex, BMI, blood pressure treatment status, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, education, participation in a diabetes education program, treatment with insulin, and history of MI. In the analysis for Table 4, we only included individuals with an average or comparatively high Framingham risk (n = 450).
Abbreviation: UO, unrealistic comparative optimism.
a
Binary logistic regression analysis.
b
Linear regression analysis.