| Background: The estimated prevalence of diabetes of Chinese adults was up to11.6%(113.9million), and the prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance patients (IGT)was accounted to493.4million. Recent advances suggest that diabetes is also a kind ofpsychosomatic disorders: psychological and social factors play an important role incontrolling the incidence and blood glucose level in diabetic population. The mentalobstacle occurrence rate was significantly higher in diabetic patients. There is a closeinterrelation between each other. However, research on the psychological status inhigh-risk diabetic groups or high risk of diabetes people is very rare in the literature. Arepopulations in high-risk diabetic group the same as in diabetic group with anxiety anddepressive disorders? Whether the prevalence of this mood dysfunction is the same? Or itexist its own unique characteristics? Can the status of mental health play an early or superearly predict role in the prevention of diabetes? The present study analyzied the mentaldisorders in IGT people and provided a reliable clinical data for mental health assessmentin high-risk T2DM group. The current study may provide a potentially effective methodfor early screening and diagnosis method of diabetes. Objective: To investigate the psychological status, the quality of life and the socialsupport in people with high-risk of type2diabetes (HR-T2D), as well as the correlationbetween these parameters. And to explore the effective psychological interventionmeasures on those people.Methods: The level of anxiety, depression, alexithymia, the manners coping stress,quality of life and social support of62people with high-risk of type2diabetes wereevaluated by using SAS, SDS, TAS-20, TCSQ, WHOQOL and SSRS, and the evaluateoutcomes were then compared with the national norm. All of these data were analyzed bySPSS17.0.Results:①Psychological symptoms in these people were higher than the domesticnorm total score (P <0.005). The incidence of anxiety, depression and alexithymia with(HR-T2D) was71.0%,72.6%and79.0%, and both the symptoms and incidence werehigher than the national norm (P <0.005), respectively.②The WHOQOL-BREF surveyshowed that the field scores of quality of life were ranked from low to high in thefollowing order: physiology (49.3±6.2), society (49.4±7.8), psychology (49.6±6.8),and environment (50.5±8.1). All these scores were significantly lower than that of thenational norm (P<0.005).③The average score of SSRS scale was29.06±4.33,and thescore of subjective social support (SSS), was13.55±2.62and the score of social supportfor the use (SSU), was6.18±0.84. All these scores were lower than that of the nationalnorm (P<0.05). The score of objective support (SSO) was higher in men than in women(P<0.05).④Correlation analysis: The scores of SAS had an outstanding positive linearcorrelation to SDS (r=0.839, P <0.001); The scores of TAS-20had an outstandingpositive linear correlation to SDS and SAS (r=0.531,0.561, P <0.001); The scores of F1factor were outstanding positive linear correlation to SDS and SAS (r=0.627,0.613, P <0.001),and the scores of F2factor were outstanding positive linear correlation to SDS andSAS (r=0.594,0.611, P <0.001), too. While the scores of F3and NC were negativecorrelation to SDS (r=0.251, P <0.05, and r=0.270, P <0.05). The scores of PC werenegative correlation to SDS and SAS (r=0.483,0.357, P <0.005). The average score ofsocial support had no obvious correlation with SAS and SDS, but its subjective support factor’score of was negative correlation to SAS and SDS (r=0.302,0.390, P <0.05). Theaverage score of quality of life had obvious negative correlation to SAS and SDS (r=0.464and0.503, P <0.01), and the scores of its four sectors were significantly negativecorrelation to SAS and SDS, too. Their correlation coefficients of SAS containphysiological field (r=0.416, P <0.01), environment field (r=0.402, P <0.01),psychological field(r=0.389, P <0.389) and social relations field(r=0.303, P <0.05),and the correlation coefficients of SDS contain psychological field (r=0.459, P <0.01),physical field (r=0.456, P <0.456), the social relations field (r=0.387, P <0.01) andenvironment field (r=0.346, P <0.01). Cultural level was positively related to SAS (r=0.340, P <0.01), but not significantly related to SDS (r=0.128, P>0.128).⑤Multiplelinear regression analysis: F1factor, environment, culture degree and the positive copingstyles had linear regression relation to the change of SAS (SAS=43.121+1.108F1+2.968Culture-0.378ENVIR-0.383PC); F1factor, psychological, positive coping style,cultural level and externally oriented thinking had linear regression relation to the changeof SDS (SDS=65.564+1.028F1+1.220Culture-0.397PSYCH-0.422PC-0.518F3).By the standardized regression coefficient, F1factor had the greatest influence to bothSAS and SDS (b’=0.620,0.613).Conclusion:①High-risk of type2diabetes groups have widely anxiety, depression,alexithymia and negative coping styles, and these common psychological disorders havemutual influence with each other. They may be some causative factors for type2diabetes.So positive psychological suplementation and intervention to the prodromal stage of type2diabetes or impired glucose tolerance people should be confirmed as soon as possible.②Because of the obvious positive correlation among alexithymia, culture, and anxiety ordepression symptoms, we should pay special attention to the evaluation and improvementof alexithymia. Meanwhile, we should pay special attention to the assessment andintervention of anxiety/depression symptoms in educationed persons.③High-risk oftype2diabetes groups generally have poor quality of life and low social support.Subjective supports, such as the psychological area and environmental area havesignificant negative correlation to anxiety or depression symptoms. So we should pay more attention to the quality of life and social support level High-risk of type2diabetespeople, especially in the fields of psychology, environment and subjective support. |
PDF Full Text Request