• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

自我评估的糖尿病控制良好与不佳:心血管风险及自我护理活动的差异

Good vs. poor self-rated diabetes control: differences in cardiovascular risk and self-care activities.

作者信息

Smith K J, Rabasa-Lhoret R, Strychar I, Karelis A D, Clyde M, Levasseur J, Pinaroc C, Pedneault M, Schmitz N

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

出版信息

Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2014 Apr;122(4):236-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1367005. Epub 2014 Mar 12.

DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1367005
PMID:24623501
Abstract

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess differences in cardiovascular risk and performance of self-care activities in people who rated their diabetes control as good or poor.

METHODS

A sub-sample of 77 participants who took part in the Evaluation of Diabetes Treatment telephone interview were invited into a clinic to complete a series of laboratory examinations. Self-rated diabetes control was validated using the following laboratory markers: HbA1c, total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio and LDL cholesterol. Differences in blood pressure and BMI were also assessed. Finally, all participants also completed the Summary of Self-Care activities questionnaire.

RESULTS

Those people who rated their diabetes control as fair or poor had a significantly higher BMI, HbA1c levels, total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio and systolic blood pressure. When asked about self-care activities in the past week, those people who reported their diabetes control was fair/poor had spent significantly fewer days following a general diet and exercising.

CONCLUSIONS

People with poor self-rated diabetes control have unfavourable cardiovascular risk and decreased performance of self-care activities.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估自我评定糖尿病控制良好或较差的人群在心血管风险及自我护理活动表现方面的差异。

方法

邀请参与糖尿病治疗评估电话访谈的77名参与者子样本到诊所完成一系列实验室检查。使用以下实验室指标验证自我评定的糖尿病控制情况:糖化血红蛋白、总胆固醇/高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比值和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇。还评估了血压和体重指数的差异。最后,所有参与者还完成了自我护理活动总结问卷。

结果

自我评定糖尿病控制为中等或较差的人群,其体重指数、糖化血红蛋白水平、总胆固醇/高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比值和收缩压显著更高。当被问及过去一周的自我护理活动时,那些报告糖尿病控制为中等/较差的人遵循常规饮食和锻炼的天数明显较少。

结论

自我评定糖尿病控制较差的人群存在不利的心血管风险,且自我护理活动表现下降。

相似文献

1
Good vs. poor self-rated diabetes control: differences in cardiovascular risk and self-care activities.自我评估的糖尿病控制良好与不佳:心血管风险及自我护理活动的差异
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2014 Apr;122(4):236-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1367005. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
2
Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988-2002.糖尿病护理流程及中间结果的改善:美国,1988 - 2002年
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 4;144(7):465-74. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00005.
3
Glucose, cholesterol and blood pressure in type II diabetes: A longitudinal observational study comparing patients with and without severe mental illness.2 型糖尿病患者的血糖、胆固醇和血压:一项比较有和无严重精神疾病患者的纵向观察研究。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Nov;26(9-10):347-357. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12546. Epub 2019 Jul 31.
4
Is the number of documented diabetes process-of-care indicators associated with cardiometabolic risk factor levels, patient satisfaction, or self-rated quality of diabetes care? The Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study.已记录的糖尿病照护过程指标数量是否与心血管代谢危险因素水平、患者满意度或糖尿病照护的自评质量相关?糖尿病研究成果转化为行动(TRIAD)研究。
Diabetes Care. 2006 Sep;29(9):2108-13. doi: 10.2337/dc06-0633.
5
Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes.先前已确诊糖尿病的成年人对血管疾病危险因素的控制不佳。
JAMA. 2004 Jan 21;291(3):335-42. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.3.335.
6
Feasibility of an internet-based intervention for improving diabetes outcomes among low-income patients with a high risk for poor diabetes outcomes followed in a community clinic.基于互联网的干预措施在改善社区诊所中低收入、高风险、糖尿病预后不良患者的糖尿病结局方面的可行性。
Diabetes Educ. 2013 May-Jun;39(3):365-75. doi: 10.1177/0145721713484594. Epub 2013 Apr 22.
7
Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Patients with Poorly Controlled Diabetes Mellitus.血糖控制不佳的糖尿病患者的心血管危险因素
Med Arch. 2018 Feb;72(1):13-16. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2018.72.13-16.
8
Patient self-management program for diabetes: first-year clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes.糖尿病患者自我管理项目:第一年的临床、人文及经济成果。
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2005 Mar-Apr;45(2):130-7. doi: 10.1331/1544345053623492.
9
Effects of Mobile Text Messaging on Glycemic Control in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.移动短信对冠心病合并糖尿病患者血糖控制的影响:一项随机临床试验。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 Sep;12(9):e005805. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005805. Epub 2019 Aug 31.
10
Improvements in glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity with a low-carbohydrate diet in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.低碳水化合物饮食改善 2 型糖尿病肥胖患者的糖代谢和胰岛素敏感性。
J Am Coll Nutr. 2013;32(1):11-7. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2013.767630.

引用本文的文献

1
Identifying Factors Associated with Functional Limitation Among Diabetic Patients in Northwest of Iran: Application of the Generalized Additive Model.确定伊朗西北部糖尿病患者功能受限的相关因素:广义相加模型的应用
Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Apr 25;16(2):e12757. doi: 10.5812/ijem.12757. eCollection 2018 Apr.
2
Total/high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (re)hospitalization nadir in type 2 diabetes.2 型糖尿病患者的总/高密度脂蛋白胆固醇与心血管疾病(再)住院的最低值。
J Lipid Res. 2018 Sep;59(9):1745-1750. doi: 10.1194/jlr.P084269. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
3
Prevalence of lipohypertrophy in insulin-treated diabetes patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
胰岛素治疗的糖尿病患者中脂肪增生的患病率:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Diabetes Investig. 2017 Sep 1;9(3):536-43. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12742.
4
Assessing Diabetes Self-Management with the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) Can Help Analyse Behavioural Problems Related to Reduced Glycaemic Control.使用糖尿病自我管理问卷(DSMQ)评估糖尿病自我管理有助于分析与血糖控制不佳相关的行为问题。
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 3;11(3):e0150774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150774. eCollection 2016.