Abstract
Background:
This study evaluated racial differences in the contribution of demographic, social determinants, clinical and self-care factors on quality of life (QOL) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
Methods:
615 adults with T2DM in Southeastern United States were recruited. Linear regression models were used to assess the contribution of demographic, social determinants, clinical and self-care factors, on the mental (MCS) and physical components (PCS) of QOL, after stratifying by race.
Results:
For the entire sample, there were significant relationships between PCS and psychological distress (β = 0.02, p < 0.01), neighborhood aesthetics (β = 0.05, p < 0.01), neighborhood walking environment (β = −0.02, p < 0.05), access to healthy food (β = 0.01, p < 0.05), neighborhood crime (β = −0.15, p < 0.05), neighborhood comparison (β = 0.13, p < 0.05); and MCS and depression (β = −0.06, p < 0.05), psychological distress (β = −0.09, p < 0.001), perceived stress (β = −0.12, p < 0.01), perceived health status (β = −0.33, p < 0.01). In the regression models stratified by race, notable differences existed in the association between PCS, MCS and demographic, psychosocial, built environment and clinical factors amongst Whites and Blacks, respectively.
Conclusion:
In this sample, there were racial differences in demographic, social determinants, built environment and clinical factors associated with PCS and MCS components of QOL. Interventions may need to be tailored by race or ethnicity to improve quality of life in adults with T2DM.
Keywords: Race, diabetes, quality of life, social determinants
Introduction
In the United States, over 34 million people live with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a debilitating and demanding chronic condition that influences several facets of an individual’s life [1]. T2DM, a leading cause of disability, morbidity and mortality, is associated with higher rates of hospitalization [2] and medical expenditure burden of $46 billion per annum [3]. Additionally, T2DM and its associated complications such as neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, like cardiovascular disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease can negatively influence perceived health status and functional status, which have implications for quality of life [4–6], a construct significantly associated with glycemic control [7–8].
The World Health Organization defines quality of life (QOL) as a person’s perception of his/her relative position within the context of his/her culture and values in comparison to his/her goals, expectations, and standards [9]. QOL has different domains including the physical and mental health components [9]. T2DM has been shown to have deleterious effects on both physical and mental aspects of QOL [10–13]. Studies have assessed factors associated with QOL in individuals with T2DM [11,13–20]. These include demographic factors such as age [13], self-care factors such as physical activity, glucose monitoring, diet [14], medication adherence [11]; clinical factors such as fasting blood sugar [13], diabetes complications [14–15], multimorbidity [19], insulin use [11, 16], depression [17]; and psychosocial factors such as perceived control of diabetes [18], perceived discrimination [20], meaning of illness [21], and diabetes fatalism [22]. However, the distribution of these factors across racial groups in individuals with diabetes are not uniform. Though the evidence on racial differences in QOL in adults with diabetes is mixed [23–26], there is overwhelming evidence that ethnic and racial minorities with T2DM fare worse in self-care and clinical measures associated with QOL including glycemic control [27] and diabetes-related complications [28].
Given the relationship between QOL and glycemic control, interventions have been developed and tested to improve QOL in adults with T2DM [29–30]. However, the limited knowledge on racial and ethnic differences in factors associated with QOL may pose a barrier to the development of effective interventions that attend to the variations across racial and ethnic groups. To address this gap in the literature, this study aimed to examine racial differences in the unique contributions of demographic, social determinants, clinical and self-care factors on QOL in a sample of adults with T2DM.
Methods
Study Population
The study recruited 601 White and Black adults. They were recruited from two adults primary care clinics in southeastern United States. The Institutional Review Board of the Medical University of South Carolina and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Committee approved all study procedures. Individuals ages 18 years and older, proficient in the English Language, and with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes confirmed from the participants’ medical records were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included individuals with impaired cognition from significant dementia or active psychosis.
Before being consented, a detailed explanation of the study was provided to all eligible adults. The study questionnaire was administered to all. The validated questionnaire was informed, by the Brown et al. conceptual framework, and assessed demographic information, social determinants of health factors, psychosocial factors, self-care behaviors, and clinical factors [31].
Demographic Variables
The demographic variables assessed included age, sex, race, marital status, recruitment site, and insurance. Age was treated as a continuous variable. Race was dichotomized as White and Black. Insurance was categorized as none, private, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and other. Marital status was categorized as never married, married, separated, and widowed. Recruitment occurred at two sites: The Medical University of South Carolina and the Ralph H. Johnson Veteran Affairs Medical Center.
Socioeconomic Factors
Years of education and income were assessed with a previously validated questionnaire from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey [32]. Education was treated as a continuous variable. Annual personal income was categorized as <$9,999, $10,000-$14,999, $15,000-$19,999, $20,000-$24,999, $25,000-$34,999, $35,000-$49,000, $50,000-$74,999, and $75,000 and more. Hours of work per week was treated as a continuous variable.
Psychosocial Factors
Psychosocial factors assessed included diabetes fatalism, depression, diabetes distress, self-efficacy, social support, and perceived stress.
Depression:
This was assessed with a PHQ-9 instrument. The PHQ-9 is a 9-item scale modeled after the DSM-IV criteria to diagnose depression. A higher score indicates more severe depression. A score ≥ 10 from the PHQ-9 instrument has a specificity of 88% and a sensitivity of 88% for major depression [33].
Diabetes Fatalism:
This was assessed with the 12-item Diabetes Fatalism Scale (DFS-12). The items on the DFS-12 is scored using a 6-point Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. The higher score correlates to more diabetes fatalistic attitude [33]. DFS-12 has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80.
Diabetes Distress:
This was assessed with the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). The 17-item instrument measures different dimensions of distress: access to care, support, emotional burden, and disease management [32].
Psychological Distress:
This was assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6). The instrument is a 6-item scale with higher scores correlating to a higher probability of severe mental illness. The psychometric properties of K6 has been shown to be consistent across multiple subpopulations [35].
Self-Efficacy:
This was assessed with the Perceived Diabetes Self-Management Scale (PDSMS). A higher score on the 8-item instrument is indicative of a higher self-efficacy [36]. PDSMS has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83.
Social Support:
This was assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey. The 19-item instrument measures positive social interaction, emotional or informational support, affectionate support, and tangible support. The one-year test-retest reliability for MOS-SS is 0.72 to 0.76 [37].
Perceived Stress:
This was assessed with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The 4-item scale measures the frequency of stressful events participants encountered over the previous month [38].
Built Environment Factors
Built environment was assessed using six scales and four indices based on a prior validation study [39]. A higher score is indicative of more perceived neighborhood problems.
The variables that define the built environment differ in the number of an item scale measures. The aesthetic environment consisted of 7 items; Neighborhood walking/exercise environment consisted of 11 items; social cohesion consisted of 5 items; access to healthy foods consisted of 11 items. The scale’s response ranges from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Recreation facilities index had 8 items which measure the presence of recreational facilities in the neighborhoods with a “yes” or “no” response. Neighborhood crime and violence has 4 items and 3 items respectively. The response categories for neighborhood violence range from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
Neighborhood Problems Index:
The index was assessed with a 16-item scale. The scale response ranges from 1 to 3, with 1 indicating neighborhood attribute was not a problem, 2 it was somewhat of a problem, and 3 it was a big problem. The sum of the responses represented the neighborhood problems index score.
Neighborhood Participation Index:
The neighborhood participation index was measured with a 12-item scale. The index measures an individual’s involvement in civic and political activities with their neighbors.
Clinical factors
The Charlson comorbidity index was used to estimate comorbidity and it was reported as a continuous score [40]. The duration of diabetes was collected in years and treated as a continuous variable. Body mass index (BMI) was estimated from the most recent height, and weight obtained from the electronic medical record and used as a continuous variable. Participants were asked if they use insulin, had eye problems or kidney problems; these variables were dichotomized as yes, or no. Perceived health status was used as a continuous variable.
Knowledge and Self-Care Factors
Diabetes Knowledge:
This was assessed with the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ). The final score from the 24-item scale is estimated from the percentage of correct scores [41].
Participants were asked about their blood sugar, foot care, exercise, and diet (general and specific). These variables were each treated as a continuous variable. Information on smoking status was collected and categorized as never smoker, current smoker, and former smoker.
Outcome Measure
Comprised of the physical health and mental health components, QOL was assessed with the SF-12. The 12-item scale provides a summary of mental health (MCS-12) and physical health (PCS-12) component outcome scores which were reported as continuous variables. The SF-12 is widely used because its outcome scores are similar to the longer SF-36 version in a variety of populations[42–43]. Questions used to assess mental health include how often any emotional problems, such as feeling anxious or depressed, lead to respondents not doing activities as carefully as usual, or accomplishing less than one would like. Questions used to assess the physical health component include how often physical health limits activities such as climbing several flights of stairs or moving a table.
Statistical Analysis
The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample were assessed using chi square for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables and are presented by race. Linear regression models were then used to model the relationship between the demographic, social determinants, clinical, knowledge and self-care factors and the two components of QOL for the entire sample. This was followed by linear regression models to assess the relationship between the demographic, social determinants, clinical, knowledge and self-care factors and QOL for Whites and Blacks. The analyses were conducted using STATA SE 15.1, and statistical significance was assessed using a two-sided p-value of 0.05.
Results
The baseline characteristics by race for the 601 adults with T2DM participating in this study are presented in Table 1. Two-thirds of the participants were Black, and one-third was White. The baseline demographics differed by race with the exception of mean duration of diabetes, mean comorbidity, site and perceived health status. White participants were more likely to be older (65 years versus 60 years), married (63% versus 42%), have more years of education (14 years versus 13 years) and have higher income (55% versus 22% with income $35K or more) compared with Blacks. Black participants were more likely to be female (47% versus 23%), separated/divorced (32% versus 22%), and earn less (68% versus 46% with income $35K or less). White and Black adults reported similar physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) of quality of life.
Table 1:
Sample Demographics by Race
| Variable | Whites | Blacks | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | 203 | 398 | -- |
| Age | 64.7 ± 9.6 | 59.9 ± 11.1 | 0.020 * |
| Education | 14.3 ± 3.2 | 13.0 ± 2.6 | <0.001 * |
| Hours of work/week | 9.7 ± 17.0 | 13.6 ± 19.7 | 0.019 * |
| Duration of diabetes | 12.9 ± 9.3 | 11.9 ± 9.1 | 0.732 |
| Comorbidity | 25.9 ± 2.2 | 25.6 ± 2.3 | 0.408 |
| Site | 0.284 | ||
| Academic Medical Center | 48.8 | 53.4 | |
| Veterans Affairs Medical Center | 51.2 | 46.6 | |
| Sex | <0.001 * | ||
| Men | 77.3 | 53.1 | |
| Women | 22.7 | 46.9 | |
| Marital status | <0.001 * | ||
| Never Married | 6.9 | 13.6 | |
| Married | 62.6 | 42.4 | |
| Separated/Divorced | 21.7 | 31.7 | |
| Widowed | 8.9 | 12.3 | |
| Income | <0.001 * | ||
| $0 – $9,999 | 7.7 | 26.4 | |
| $10,000 – $14,999 | 7.7 | 13.5 | |
| $15,000 – $19,999 | 9.7 | 10.6 | |
| $20,000 – $24,999 | 9.7 | 10.4 | |
| $25,000 – $34,999 | 10.7 | 16.8 | |
| $35,000 – $49,999 | 21.9 | 9.1 | |
| $50,000 – $74,999 | 12.2 | 9.3 | |
| $75,000 or more | 20.4 | 3.9 | |
| Health status | 0.171 | ||
| Excellent | 2.0 | 1.0 | |
| Very Good | 13.3 | 11.3 | |
| Good | 42.4 | 37.1 | |
| Fair | 31.5 | 41.6 | |
| Poor | 10.8 | 9.0 | |
| PCS | 56.4 ± 0.8 | 56.3 ± 1.1 | <0.001 * |
| MCS | 56.7 ± 2.3 | 56.5 ± 2.7 | 0.010 * |
Significance at p-value<0.05.
All numbers represent mean ± standard deviation or percentages. Abbreviations: PCS=Physical Component Score; MCS=Mental Component Score
Table 2 shows the results of the adjusted linear regression model examining the relationship between demographic, social determinants, clinical, knowledge and self-care factors, PCS, and MCS for the full sample. For PCS, significant associations were observed with psychological distress (β = 0.02, p < 0.01), neighborhood aesthetics (β = 0.05, p < 0.01), neighborhood safety (β = 0.01, p < 0.05), neighborhood crime (β = −0.15, p < 0.05), and neighborhood comparison (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). For MCS, significant associations were observed with depression (β = −0.06, p < 0.05), psychological distress (β = −0.09, p < 0.001), perceived stress (β = −0.12, p < 0.01), and perceived health status (β = −0.33, p < 0.01).
Table 2:
Adjusted Linear Regression Model of the Relationship between Demographic, Social Determinants, Clinical, Knowledge and Self Care Factors, PCS and MCS
| PCS Adjusted β-coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) | MCS Adjusted β-coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) | |
|---|---|---|
| Demographic factors | ||
| Age | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.02) | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) |
| Sex | ||
| Women | Ref | Ref |
| Men | −0.22 (−0.45, 0.01) | 0.52 (−0.00, 1.04) |
| Marital status | ||
| Never Married | Ref | Ref |
| Married | −0.12 (−0.40, 0.15) | −0.30 (−0.93, 0.33) |
| Separated/Divorced | −0.03 (−0.32, 0.26) | −0.03 (−0.32, 0.26) |
| Widowed | −0.07 (−0.43, 0.29) | −0.08 (−0.88, 0.72) |
| Race | ||
| Whites | Ref | Ref |
| Blacks | −0.17 (−0.38, 0.03) | −0.05 (−0.51, 0.41) |
| Insurance | ||
| None | Ref | Ref |
| Private | −0.20 (−0.58, 0.17) | 0.61 (−0.23, 1.45) |
| Medicare | −0.14 (−0.47, 0.20) | 0.41 (−0.35, 1.17) |
| Medicaid | −0.22 (−0.61, 0.18) | 0.37 (−2.48, −0.07) |
| VA | 0.05 (−0.27, 0.37) | 0.14 (−0.58, 0.86) |
| Other | −0.15 (−0.53, 0.24) | 0.35 (−0.53, 1.22) |
| Site | ||
| Academic Medical Center | Ref | Ref |
| Veterans Affairs Medical Center | −0.06 (−0.30, 0.18) | 0.23 (−0.32, 0.77) |
| Socioeconomic factors | ||
| Education | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.04) | −0.00 (−0.08, 0.07) |
| Income | 0.00 (−0.05, 0.06) | 0.00 (−0.11, 0.12) |
| Hours of work/week | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.01) | 0.00 (−0.01, 0.02) |
| Psychosocial factors | ||
| Diabetes fatalism | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.02) | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) |
| Depression | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) | −0.06 (−0.11, −0.01) * |
| Diabetes distress | −0.03 (−0.20, 0.14) | 0.07 (−0.32, 0.45) |
| Psychological distress | 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) ** | −0.09 (−0.13, −0.06) *** |
| Self-efficacy | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.06) |
| Social support | 0.00 (−0.00, 0.00) | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.02) |
| Perceived stress | −0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | −0.12 (−0.19, −0.05) ** |
| Built environment factors | ||
| Neighborhood aesthetics | 0.05 (0.01, 0.08) ** | 0.02 (−0.06, 0.10) |
| Neighborhood walking environment | −0.02 (−0.04, 0.00)* | −0.00 (−0.04, 0.03) |
| Neighborhood safety | 0.04 (−0.10, −0.09) | −0.02 (−0.12, 0.09) |
| Access to healthy food | 0.01 (0.00, 0.03) * | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) |
| Social cohesion | −0.01 (−0.04, 0.02) | −0.01 (−0.08, 0.05) |
| Neighborhood violence | 0.03 (−0.03, 0.08) | 0.06 (−0.18, 0.07) |
| Neighborhood crime | −0.15 (−0.29, −0.00) * | 0.15 (−0.17, 0.46) |
| Neighborhood rating | −0.06 (−0.23, 0.11) | 0.07 (−0.31, 0.45) |
| Neighborhood comparison | 0.13 (0.02, 0.24) * | −0.12 (−0.37, 0.13) |
| Recreation facility index | 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) | −0.04 (−0.13, 0.06) |
| Neighborhood participation index | −0.01 (−0.04, 0.02) | −0.01 (−0.08, 0.05) |
| Neighborhood problem index | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | 0.01 (−0.06, 0.08) |
| Food insecurity | 0.00 (−0.05, 0.05) | 0.04 (−0.15, 0.07) |
| Clinical factors | ||
| Duration of diabetes | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.02) | 0.01 (−0.02, 0.03) |
| Body Mass Index | −0.00 (−0.01, 0.01) | −0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) |
| Comorbidity | −0.03 (−0.07, 0.02) | −0.08 (−0.18, 0.01) |
| Insulin use | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | −0.11 (−0.31, 0.09) | −0.18 (−0.62, 0.26) |
| Kidney problem | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.20 (−0.02, 0.41) | 0.16 (−0.32, 0.65) |
| Eye problem | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.05 (−0.14, 0.23) | 0.13 (−0.29, 0.55) |
| Perceived health status | −0.05 (−0.16, 0.06) | −0.33 (−0.58, −0.09) ** |
| Knowledge and self-care factors | ||
| Diabetes knowledge | −0.02 (−0.04, 0.01) | 0.04 (−0.01, 0.10) |
| General diet | −0.02 (−0.06, 0.03) | −0.03 (−0.14, 0.08) |
| Specific diet | 0.01 (−0.05, 0.07) | 0.04 (−0.09, 0.17) |
| Exercise | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.05) | 0.09 (−0.00, 0.18) |
| Blood sugar testing | 0.02 (−0.02, 0.05) | −0.03 (−0.11, 0.05) |
| Foot care | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.04) | −0.03 (−0.11, 0.05) |
| Smoking | ||
| Never smoker | Ref | Ref |
| Former smoker | −0.03 (0.22, 0.16) | −0.22 (−0.65, 0.22) |
| Current smoker | −0.02 (−0.26, 0.22) | 0.02 (−0.51, 0.56) |
Significance at
p<0.001
p<0.01
p-value<0.05.
Abbreviations: PCS=Physical Component Score; MCS=Mental Component Score
Table 3 provides the results of adjusted linear regression model examining the relationship between demographic, social determinants, clinical, knowledge and self-care factors and PCS by race. Significant relationships existed between PCS and psychological distress (β = 0.02, p < 0.01), neighborhood aesthetics (β = 0.05, p < 0.01), neighborhood walking environment (β = −0.02, p < 0.05), access to healthy food (β = 0.01, p < 0.05), neighborhood crime (β = −0.15, p < 0.05), and neighborhood comparison (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). After stratification by race, there were significant relationships between PCS and Medicaid (β = −0.86, p < 0.05), neighborhood participation index (β = −0.05, p < 0.05), perceived health status (β = −0.19, p < 0.05) in Whites. In Blacks, there were significant relationships between PCS and hours worked per week (β = 0.01, p < 0.05), psychological distress (β = 0.03, p < 0.05), neighborhood aesthetics (β = 0.06, p < 0.05), neighborhood walking environment (β = −0.03, p < 0.05), neighborhood crime (β = −0.24, p < 0.05).
Table 3:
Adjusted Linear Regression Model of the Relationship between Demographic, Social Determinants, Clinical, Knowledge and Self Care Factors and PCS Stratified by Race
| PCS Blacks Adjusted β-coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) | PCS Whites Adjusted β-coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) | |
|---|---|---|
| Demographic factors | ||
| Age | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.03) | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.02) |
| Sex | ||
| Women | Ref | Ref |
| Men | 0.07 (−0.41, 0.26) | −0.31 (−0.65, 0.03) |
| Marital status | ||
| Never Married | Ref | Ref |
| Married | −0.15 (−0.51, 0.21) | −0.19 (−0.71, 0.33) |
| Separated/Divorced | −0.06 (−0.43, 0.31) | −0.14 (−0.67, 0.40) |
| Widowed | −0.06 (−0.52, 0.41) | −0.03 (−0.69, 0.63) |
| Insurance | ||
| None | Ref | Ref |
| Private | −0.26 (−0.74, 0.22) | −0.35 (−1.02, 0.32) |
| Medicare | 0.01 (−0.43, 0.45) | −0.53 (−1.12, 0.10) |
| Medicaid | −0.22 (−0.61, 0.18) | −0.86 (−1.58, −0.14) * |
| VA | 0.18 (−0.23, 0.60) | −0.33 (−0.91, 0.25) |
| Other | −0.01 (−0.52, 0.51) | −0.70 (−1.41, 0.01) |
| Site | ||
| Academic Medical Center | Ref | Ref |
| Veterans Affairs Medical Center | −0.21 (−0.57, 0.15) | 0.09 (−0.24, 0.42) |
| Socioeconomic factors | ||
| Education | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.04) | 0.03 (−0.02, 0.08) |
| Income | 0.00 (−0.05, 0.06) | 0.02 (−0.09, 0.06) |
| Hours of work/week | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.01) | 0.01 (0.00, 0.02) * |
| Psychosocial factors | ||
| Diabetes fatalism | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.02) | 0.01 (−0.00, 0.02) |
| Depression | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) | −0.02 (−0.04, 0.01) |
| Diabetes distress | −0.03 (−0.20, 0.14) | −0.10 (−0.32, 0.12) |
| Psychological distress | 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) ** | 0.03 (0.01, 0.05) * |
| Self-efficacy | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.01) | −0.03 (−0.05, 0.00) |
| Social support | 0.00 (−0.00, 0.00) | −0.00 (−0.01, 0.00) |
| Perceived stress | −0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | −0.02 (−0.06, 0.02) |
| Built environment factors | ||
| Neighborhood aesthetics | 0.05 (0.01, 0.08) ** | 0.06 (0.01, 0.11) * |
| Neighborhood walking environment | −0.02 (−0.04, 0.00) * | −0.03 (−0.05, −0.01) * |
| Neighborhood safety | 0.04 (−0.10, −0.09) | 0.04 (−0.01, 0.10) |
| Access to healthy food | 0.01 (0.00, 0.03) * | 0.02 (0.00, 0.03) |
| Social cohesion | −0.01 (−0.04, 0.02) | 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) |
| Neighborhood violence | 0.03 (−0.03, 0.08) | 0.05 (−0.02, 0.12) |
| Neighborhood crime | −0.15 (−0.29, −0.00) * | −0.24 (−0.44, −0.05) * |
| Neighborhood rating | −0.06 (−0.23, 0.11) | 0.01 (−0.21, 0.23) |
| Neighborhood comparison | 0.13 (0.02, 0.24) * | 0.12 (−0.02, 0.27) |
| Recreation facility index | 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) | −0.01 (−0.06, 0.05) |
| Neighborhood participation index | −0.01 (−0.04, 0.02) | 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) |
| Neighborhood problem index | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.05) |
| Food insecurity | 0.00 (−0.05, 0.05) | 0.01 (−0.06, 0.08) |
| Clinical factors | ||
| Duration of diabetes | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.02) | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.02) |
| Body Mass Index | −0.00 (−0.01, 0.01) | 0.00 (−0.01, 0.01) |
| Comorbidity | −0.03 (−0.07, 0.02) | −0.05 (−0.11, 0.01) |
| Insulin use | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | −0.11 (−0.31, 0.09) | −0.16 (−0.42, 0.60) |
| Kidney problem | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.20 (−0.02, 0.41) | 0.12 (−0.17, 0.42) |
| Eye problem | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.05 (−0.14, 0.23) | 0.10 (−0.15, 0.35) |
| Perceived health status | −0.05 (−0.16, 0.06) | 0.02 (−0.13, 0.17) |
| Knowledge and self-care factors | ||
| Diabetes knowledge | −0.02 (−0.04, 0.01) | −0.02 (−0.06, 0.01) |
| General diet | −0.02 (−0.06, 0.03) | 0.00 (−0.06, 0.07) |
| Specific diet | 0.01 (−0.05, 0.07) | −0.02 (−0.12, 0.06) |
| Exercise | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.05) | 0.01 (−0.04, 0.07) |
| Blood sugar testing | 0.02 (−0.02, 0.05) | 0.03 (−0.02, 0.08) |
| Foot care | 0.01 (−0.03, 0.04) | 0.00 (−0.05, 0.05) |
| Smoking | ||
| Never smoker | Ref | Ref |
| Former smoker | −0.03 (0.22, 0.16) | 0.02 (−0.25, 0.29) |
| Current smoker | −0.02 (−0.26, 0.22) | −0.01 (−0.33, 0.32) |
Significance at
p<0.001
p<0.01
p-value<0.05.
Adjusted for: demographic, social determinants (socioeconomic status, psychosocial and built environment factors), clinical factors, diabetes knowledge and self-care factors. Abbreviations: PCS=Physical Component Score.
Table 4 provides the results of adjusted linear regression models examining the relationship between demographic, social determinants, clinical, knowledge and self-care factors and MCS by race. Significant relationships existed between MCS and depression (β = −0.06, p < 0.05), psychological distress (β = −0.09, p < 0.001), perceived stress (β = −0.12, p < 0.01), perceived health status (β = −0.33, p < 0.01). After stratification by race, there were significant relationships between MCS and Medicaid (β = −2.42, p < 0.01), Other insurance (β = −1.90, p < 0.05), depression (β = −0.09, p < 0.05), neighborhood problem index (β = 0.15, p < 0.05) in Whites, while significant relationships existed between MCS and Medicaid (β = 1.33, p < 0.05), psychological distress (β = −0.11, p < 0.001), perceived stress (β = −0.13, p < 0.01), perceived health status (β = −0.35, p < 0.05), and diabetes knowledge (β = −0.08, p < 0.05) for Blacks.
Table 4:
Adjusted Linear Model of the Relationship between Demographic, Social Determinants, Clinical, Knowledge and Self Care Factors and MCS Stratified by Race
| MCS Blacks Adjusted β-coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) | MCS Whites Adjusted β-coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) | |
|---|---|---|
| Demographic factors | ||
| Age | −0.01 (−0.05, 0.02) | 0.00 (−0.04, 0.04) |
| Sex | ||
| Women | Ref | Ref |
| Men | 0.35 (−0.38, 1.07) | 0.53 (−0.30, 1.36) |
| Marital status | ||
| Never Married | Ref | Ref |
| Married | −0.19 (−0.97, 0.60) | 0.07 (−1.19, 1.32) |
| Separated/Divorced | −0.32 (−1.13, 0.48) | 0.50 (−0.79, 1.78) |
| Widowed | −0.04 (−1.06, 1.00) | 0.12 (−1.45, 1.72) |
| Insurance | ||
| None | Ref | Ref |
| Private | 1.01 (−0.04, 2.07) | −0.50 (−2.12, 1.12) |
| Medicare | 0.49 (−0.46, 1.45) | −0.57 (−2.10, 0.97) |
| Medicaid | 1.33 (0.21, 2.45) * | −2.42 (−4.17, −0.68) ** |
| VA | 0.16 (−0.75, 1.07) | −0.60 (−2.00, 0.80) |
| Other | 1.99 (−0.12, 2.11) | −1.90 (−3.63, −0.19) * |
| Site | ||
| Academic Medical Center | Ref | Ref |
| Veterans Affairs Medical Ctr | 0.78 (0.00, 1.57) | −0.57 (−1.36, 0.23) |
| Socioeconomic factors | ||
| Education | −0.02 (−0.13, 0.09) | 0.01 (−0.09, 0.12) |
| Income | 0.04 (−0.12, 0.20) | −0.15 (−0.34, 0.04) |
| Hours of work/week | 0.00 (−0.02, 0.02) | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.03) |
| Psychosocial factors | ||
| Diabetes fatalism | −0.01 (−0.03, 0.02) | −0.01 (−0.05, 0.03) |
| Depression | −0.05 (−0.11, 0.01) | −0.09 (−0.17, −0.01) * |
| Diabetes distress | 0.06 (−0.43, 0.54) | −0.08 (−0.81, 0.64) |
| Psychological distress | −0.11 (−0.15, 0.06) *** | −0.06 (−0.12, 0.01) |
| Self-efficacy | −0.01 (−0.06, 0.05) | 0.05 (−0.03, 0.12) |
| Social support | 0.01 (0.00, 0.03) * | 0.01 (0.00, 0.012 |
| Perceived stress | −0.13 (−0.22, −0.04) ** | −0.07 (−0.19, 0.04) |
| Built environment factors | ||
| Neighborhood aesthetics | 0.01 (−0.09, 0.12) | 0.01 (−0.15, 0.17) |
| Neighborhood walking environment | −0.02 (−0.07, 0.02) | 0.07 (−0.01, 0.14) |
| Neighborhood safety | −0.01 (−0.14, 0.11) | −0.08 (−0.29, 0.13) |
| Access to healthy food | −0.01 (−0.05, 0.02) | 0.04 (−0.02, 0.09) |
| Social cohesion | 0.03 (−0.07, 0.12) | −0.07 (−0.17, 0.04) |
| Neighborhood violence | 0.10 (−0.26, 0.06) | 0.12 (−0.10, 0.34) |
| Neighborhood crime | 0.11 (−0.31, 0.53) | 0.25 (−0.30, 0.79) |
| Neighborhood rating | −0.10 (−0.58, 0.38) | 0.28 (−0.41, 0.96) |
| Neighborhood comparison | −0.13 (−0.44, 0.19) | −0.35 (−0.83, 0.13) |
| Recreation facility index | −0.02 (−0.14, 0.09) | −0.07 (−0.25, 0.10) |
| Neighborhood participation index | −0.02 (−0.14, 0.09) | −0.05 (−0.17, 0.07) |
| Neighborhood problem index | −0.04 (−0.13, 0.05) | 0.15 (0.02, 0.28) * |
| Food insecurity | −0.09 (−0.23, 0.56) | 0.01 (−0.22, 0.23) |
| Clinical factors | ||
| Duration of diabetes | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.03) | 0.03 (−0.01, 0.07) |
| Body Mass Index | 0.00 (−0.03, 0.04) | −0.02 (−0.07, 0.04) |
| Comorbidity | −0.05 (−0.18, 0.09) | −0.17 (−0.35, 0.01) |
| Insulin use | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.25 (0.81, 0.32) | 0.09 (0.65, 0.83) |
| Kidney problem | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.39 (−0.26, 1.04) | 0.18 (−0.67, 1.03) |
| Eye problem | ||
| No | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.03 (−0.51, 0.57) | 0.05 (−0.69, 0.79) |
| Perceived health status | −0.35 (−0.67, 0.02) * | −0.30 (−0.68, 0.08) |
| Knowledge and self-care factors | ||
| Diabetes knowledge | 0.08 (−0.01, 0.16) * | −0.03 (−0.11, 0.06) |
| General diet | 0.02 (−0.12, 0.16) | −0.16 (−0.32, 0.01) |
| Specific diet | 0.02 (−0.16, 0.21) | 0.07 (−0.12, 0.26) |
| Exercise | 0.10 (−0.02, −0.22) | 0.02 (−0.13, 0.18) |
| Blood sugar testing | −0.04 (−0.15, 0.07) | −0.04 (−0.17, 0.10) |
| Foot care | −0.05 (−0.16, 0.06) | −0.03 (−0.15, 0.10) |
| Smoking | ||
| Never smoker | Ref | Ref |
| Former smoker | −0.26 (−0.84, 0.33) | −0.02 (−0.70, 0.66) |
| Current smoker | 0.12 (−0.59, 0.83) | 0.13 (−0.74, 1.00) |
Significance at
p<0.001
p<0.01
p-value<0.05.
Adjusted for: demographic, social determinants (socioeconomic status, psychosocial and built environment factors), clinical factors, diabetes knowledge and self-care factors. Abbreviations: MCS=Mental Component Score
Discussion
This study assessed racial differences in factors independently associated with PCS and MCS in adults with T2DM. In the total sample, psychological distress, neighborhood aesthetics, neighborhood walking environment, access to healthy food, neighborhood crime, and neighborhood comparison were significantly associated with the physical component of QOL; and depression, psychological distress, perceived stress, and perceived health status were significantly associated with the mental health component of quality of life. In the stratified models, there were racial differences in the factors independently associated with both PCS and MCS. For Whites, PCS was significantly associated with Medicaid, neighborhood participation index, and perceived health status, while MCS was significantly associated with Medicaid, Other insurance, depression, and neighborhood participation index. In Blacks, PCS was significantly associated with hours worked per week, psychological distress, neighborhood aesthetics, neighborhood walking environment, neighborhood participation index, and perceived health status, while MCS was significantly associated with Medicaid, psychological distress, social support, perceived stress, perceived health status, and diabetes knowledge. These findings suggest there are racial differences in the factors associated with QOL and therefore, interventions to improve quality of life in adults with T2DM should be tailored accordingly.
Prior studies have examined the construct of quality of life in individuals with T2DM and demonstrate an association between quality of life and various self-care and clinical constructs [11, 13–14, 16–17]. Though limited evidence exists on racial differences in QOL across racial and ethnic groups with diabetes, a study examining health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a sample of 186 Black adults with T2DM found that HRQL was associated with socioeconomic and familial factors (money, housing, crime, family, caretaking responsibilities), obesity, insulin and comorbidity [44]. However, the current study is novel in that it provides unique insight into racial differences in the demographic, socioeconomic, clinical and self-care correlates of quality of life in individuals with T2DM.
Given the persistent health disparities in the U.S., there is a need for innovative interventions that improve health outcomes and quality of life in adults with T2DM. Several studies have tested the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions in improving quality of life in ethnically and racially heterogenous samples of adults with diabetes and have shown promising results [29–30]. Additionally, studies have tested interventions focused on psychological distress, social support, and knowledge in Blacks demonstrating that incorporating these constructs in interventions are effective in improving targeted outcomes in Blacks with T2DM [45–46]. However, effective measures to ameliorate disparities in diabetes-related outcomes, particularly quality of life, in adults with T2DM remain elusive. Hence, it is important that clinicians caring for patients with T2DM should be informed about in factors associated with quality of life across various racial and ethnic groups, especially since a standardized, uniform approach for all patients may not be as effective. While it is important that interventions are culturally appropriate, it also vital that interventions should address factors that have been shown to be scientifically relevant for the target populations.
The current study has some limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, this was a cross-sectional study, which precludes any assumptions of causal associations between the variables being studied and QOL. Second, the data used in this study were comprised of self-reported measures, which could be a potential source of bias. Third, the participants in the study were recruited from two primary clinics in Southeastern U.S., which limits our ability to generalize our findings to other regions of the U.S. Lastly, subgroup analyses were not performed in the current study, hence, it is challenging to ascertain if the differences in MCS and PCS can be explained by the differences in demographic characteristics amongst Black and White participants. amongst In spite of these weaknesses, the use of validated instruments and our large sample size are notable strengths of the study.
Conclusion
The findings from this study illustrate racial differences in factors associated with quality of life in a sample of adults with T2DM. Our analysis revealed variations in factors associated with quality of life amongst Whites and Blacks with T2DM, which could prove useful in advancing efforts to develop tailored health interventions that consider the unique needs of specific racial groups. Future studies should seek to understand racial differences in the effectiveness of multilevel interventions that address relevant social determinants, clinical, knowledge and self-care factors aimed at improving quality of life in adults with T2DM. Future studies should also investigate disparities in QOL outcomes using larger sample size and across diverse geographical areas.
Acknowledgments
Disclosures
This study was partially supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases K24Dk093699, R01DK118038, and R01DK120861 (PI: Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS). No potential conflicts of interest were reported.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This Author Accepted Manuscript is a PDF file of a an unedited peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication but has not been copyedited or corrected. The official version of record that is published in the journal is kept up to date and so may therefore differ from this version.
References
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bo S, Ciccone G, Grassi G, Gancia R, Rosato R, Merletti F, Pagano GF. Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of hospitalization than the general population. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2004. Nov 1;57(11):1196–201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ozieh MN, Bishu KG, Dismuke CE, Egede LE. Trends in health care expenditure in US adults with diabetes: 2002–2011. Diabetes Care. 2015. Oct 1;38(10):1844–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Al-Mandhari A, Al-Zakwani I, Al-Hasni A, Al-Sumri N. Assessment of perceived health status in hypertensive and diabetes mellitus patients at primary health centers in oman. International journal of preventive medicine. 2011. Oct;2(4):256. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wu JH, Haan MN, Liang J, Ghosh D, Gonzalez HM, Herman WH. Diabetes as a predictor of change in functional status among older Mexican Americans: a population-based cohort study. Diabetes care. 2003. Feb 1;26(2):314–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Deshpande AD, Harris-Hayes M, Schootman M. Epidemiology of diabetes and diabetes-related complications. Physical therapy. 2008. Nov 1;88(11):1254–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Luscombe F. Health related quality of life measurement in type 2 diabetes. Value in Health. 2000. Nov;3:15–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hsu HC, Lee YJ, Wang RH. Influencing Pathways to Quality of Life and HbA1c in Patients With Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study That Inform Evidence Based Practice. Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing. 2018. Apr;15(2):104–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998. Jun; 46(12):1569–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Brown H, Gozum M, Denton P. J Diabetes Complications. Vol. 14. 2000. Quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population; pp. 18–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Daher AM, AlMashoor SA, Winn T. Glycaemic control and quality of life among ethnically diverse Malaysian diabetic patients. Quality of Life Research. 2015. Apr 1;24(4):951–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Smith DW. The population perspective on quality of life among Americans with diabetes. Quality of Life Research. 2004. Oct 1;13(8):1391–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gebremedhin T, Workicho A, Angaw DA. Health-related quality of life and its associated factors among adult patients with type II diabetes attending Mizan Tepi University Teaching Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care. 2019. Feb 1;7(1):e000577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jing X, Chen J, Dong Y, Han D, Zhao H, Wang X, Gao F, Li C, Cui Z, Liu Y, Ma J. Related factors of quality of life of type 2 diabetes patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2018. Dec 1;16(1):189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.American Diabetes Association. Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Diabetes care. 1999. Jul 1;22(7):1125–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gillani SW, Ansari IA, Zaghloul HA, Sulaiman SA, Rathore HA, Baig MR, Abdul MI, Althagfan S. Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients with Type II Diabetes Mellitus Who Are Insulin Users: A Multidimensional Model. Current Therapeutic Research. 2019. Jan 1;90:53–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Egede LE, Ellis C. The effects of depression on metabolic control and quality of life in indigent patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2010. Apr 1;12(4):257–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hernandez-Tejada MA, Lynch CP, Strom JL, Egede LE. Effect of perceived control on quality of life in indigent adults with type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes Educator. 2012. Mar;38(2):256–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Williams JS, Egede LE. The association between multimorbidity and quality of life, health status and functional disability. The American journal of the medical sciences. 2016. Jul 1;352(1):45–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Achuko O, Walker RJ, Campbell JA, Dawson AZ, Egede LE. Pathways between discrimination and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2016. Mar 1;18(3):151–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Walker RJ, Lynch CP, Williams JS, Voronca D, Egede LE. Meaning of illness and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. 2015. Jul 1;29(5):665–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Williams JS, Walker RJ, Smalls BL, Hill R, Egede LE. Patient-centered care, glycemic control, diabetes self-care, and quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2016. Oct 1;18(10):644–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Ethnicity and Diabetic Quality-of-Life. The American journal of the medical sciences. 2019. Aug 1;358(2):121–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Quandt SA, Graham CN, Bell RA, Snively BM, Golden SL, Stafford JM, Arcury TA. Ethnic disparities in health-related quality of life among older rural adults with diabetes. Ethnicity & disease. 2007;17(3):471. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Laiteerapong N, Karter AJ, John PM, Schillinger D, Moffet HH, Liu JY, Adler N, Chin MH, Huang ES. Ethnic differences in quality of life in insured older adults with diabetes mellitus in an integrated delivery system. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2013. Jul;61(7):1103–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Misra R, Lager J. Ethnic and gender differences in psychosocial factors, glycemic control, and quality of life among adult type 2 diabetic patients. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. 2009. Jan 1;23(1):54–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Campbell JA, Walker RJ, Smalls BL, Egede LE. Glucose control in diabetes: the impact of racial differences on monitoring and outcomes. Endocrine. 2012. Dec 1;42(3):471–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wang Y, Katzmarzyk PT, Horswell R, Li W, Xiao K, Besse J, Xie W, Johnson J, Heymsfield S, Ryan DH, Hu G. Racial disparities in diabetic complications in an underinsured population. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2012. Dec 1;97(12):4446–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Baghianimoghadam MH, Ardekani M, Baghianimoghadam B. Effect of education on improvement of quality of life by SF-20 in type 2 diabetic patients. Acta Medica Indonesiana. 2009. Oct;41(4):175–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Zhang X, Norris SL, Chowdhury FM, Gregg EW, Zhang P. The effects of interventions on health-related quality of life among persons with diabetes: a systematic review. Medical care. 2007. Sep 1:820–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Brown AF, Ettner SL, Piette J, Weinberger M, Gregg E, Shapiro MF, Karter AJ, Safford M, Waitzfelder B, Prata PA, Beckles GL. Socioeconomic position and health among persons with diabetes mellitus: a conceptual framework and review of the literature. Epidemiologic reviews. 2004. Jul 1;26(1):63–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.National Center for Health Statistics. Survey Questionnaire, National Health Interview Survey, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics. 2004. Aug 11. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ 9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of general internal medicine. 2001. Sep;16(9):606–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Egede LE, Ellis C. Development and Psychometric Properties of the 12-Item Diabetes Fatalism Scale. J Gen Intern Med, 2010;25:61–66. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1168-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SLT, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine. 2002;32:959–976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Wallston K, Rothman R, Cherrington A. Psychometric Properties of the Perceived Diabetes Self-Management Scale (PDSMS) J Behav Med 2007;30:395–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS Social Support Survey. Social Science and Medicine. 1991;32:705–714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Cohen S, Williamson G. Perceived Stress in a Probability Sample of the United States. In: Spacapan S, Oskamp S, editors. The Social Psychology of Health. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Echeverria SE, Diez-Roux AV, Link BG. Reliability of self-reported neighborhood characteristics. Journal of Urban Health. 2004;81(4):682–701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Garcia AA, Villagomez ET, Brown SA, Kouzekanani K, Hannis CL. The Starr County Diabetes Education Study: development of the Spanish-language diabetes knowledge questionnaire. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:16–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S: 12-Item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Resnick B, Parker R: Simplified scoring and psychometrics of the revised 12-item short-form health survey. Outcomes Manag Nurs Pract 2001;5:161–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Hill-Briggs F, Gary TL, Hill MN, Bone LR, Brancati FL. Health-related quality of life in urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes. Journal of general internal medicine. 2002. Jun 1;17(6):412–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bogner HR, de Vries HF. Integrating type 2 diabetes mellitus and depression treatment among African Americans. The Diabetes Educator. 2010. Mar;36(2):284–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Tang TS, Funnell MM, Sinco B, Spencer MS, Heisler M. Peer-led, empowerment-based approach to self-management efforts in diabetes (PLEASED): a randomized controlled trial in an African American community. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2015. Aug 1;13(Suppl 1):S27–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]