Diabetes Self-Management and Health-Related Quality of Life among Primary Care Patients with Diabetes in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study
by
,
Diana Alsayed Hassan
1,*
,
Fatema Helaluddin
1,
Ozra Hajebi Chahestani
1,
Omnia Mohamed
1 and
Nazmul Islam
1,2 1
Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar
2
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(11), 2124; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112124
Submission received: 10 September 2022
/
Revised: 2 October 2022
/
Accepted: 12 October 2022
/
Published: 25 October 2022
Abstract
:Diabetes self-management (DSM) practices are an important determinant of health-related outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The purpose of this study is to explore DSM practices and their relationship with the HRQOL of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary health care centers (PHCCs) in Qatar. In this cross-sectional study, data were collected from PHCC patients with diabetes via interview-administered questionnaires by utilizing two instruments: the DSM questionnaire (DSMQ) and the HRQOL Short Form (SF-12). Frequencies were calculated for categorical variables and medians were calculated for continuous variables that were not normally distributed. A statistical comparison between groups was conducted using chi-square for categorical data. Binary logistic regression was utilized to examine the relationship between the significant independent factors and the dependent variables. A total of 105 patients completed the questionnaire, 51.4% of whom were male. Approximately half of the participants (48.6%) reported poor overall DSM practices, and 50.5% reported poor physical health quality of life (PC) and mental health quality of life (MC). Female participants showed significantly higher odds of reporting poor DSM than male participants (OR, 4.77; 95% CI, 1.92–11.86; p = 0.001). Participants with a secondary education (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04–0.81; p = 0.025) and university education (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04–0.84; p = 0.029) showed significantly lower odds of reporting poor DSM than participants with no/primary education. Older participants showed higher odds of reporting poor PC than younger participants (OR 11.04, 95% CI, 1.47–82.76 and OR 8.32; 95% CI, 1.10–62.86, respectively). Females also had higher odds for poor PC than males (OR 7.08; 95% CI, 2.21–22.67), while participants with a secondary (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03–0.62; p = 0.010) and university education (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.57; p = 0.008) showed significantly lower odds of reporting poor MC. In conclusion, patients with diabetes reported poor overall DSM practices and poor HRQOL. Our findings suggest intensifying efforts to deliver culturally appropriate DSM education to patients and to empower patients to take charge of their health.
1. Introduction
Diabetes mellitus continues to be one of the most debilitating diseases. According to the International Diabetes Federation, the prevalence of diabetes in the Middle East and North African region is 12.8%, the highest in the world (IDF regions) [1]. Alarmingly, in Qatar, the prevalence of diabetes among adults is 15.5%, which is higher than the global prevalence [2]. It is projected that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Qatar will increase to at least 24% by 2050 [3].
It is well-documented in the literature that individuals with diabetes report a deteriorated quality of life compared to individuals with no chronic conditions. This could be due to certain clinical characteristics of diabetes, such as the required comprehensive daily-care activities; the presence of comorbidities; and diabetes complications, which is the single most important determinant of how persons with diabetes perceive their physical and mental quality of life [4,5].
Heath-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a multidimensional concept that has been defined as the subjective evaluation of an individual’s physical and mental health from the individual’s perspective [6]. An improved or sustained quality of life in general is the primary goal outcome of diabetes early diagnosis, self-management, and treatment [7,8]. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in evaluating the quality of life of individuals with diabetes and other chronic conditions. While diabetes, due to its demanding and progressive nature, can impair an individual’s perception of their quality of life, a deteriorated perception of quality of life can lead to poor self-care activities related to diabetes self-management [7].
The term self-management refers to the day-to-day activities that individuals undertake to minimize the negative outcomes and to prevent further complications of their chronic condition over the course of their illness [9]. Self-management behaviors for participants with diabetes mellitus represent a collection of actions that include undergoing treatment, self-monitoring glucose, exercising regularly, and managing diet, in addition to problem solving and reducing risks [10]. It is well-established in the literature that participants who are actively engaged in diabetes self-management have improved health outcomes [11,12].
Additionally, a magnitude of studies have pointed to the importance of DSM practices as a way to improve quality of life, making HRQOL a significantly important outcome for individuals with diabetes [13,14]. However, the relationship between diabetes self-management and quality of life among people with diabetes has not been explored in Qatar. The purpose of this study was to investigate DSM practices among participants with type 2 diabetes attending primary health care centers (PHCCs) in Qatar and to explore the relationship between participants’ DSM practices and their perceived quality of life.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
This is a multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted among participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus from seven primary health care centers in Qatar that offered clinical services for individuals with diabetes. Since the PHCC locations that offer diabetes clinical services are limited, we were bound by PHCC recommendations as to which clinics to approach.
2.2. Data Collection and Instruments
Data were collected utilizing interview-administered questionnaires from a convenience sample in patient waiting areas at the seven diabetes clinics. Three of the researchers interviewed patients in the waiting area after asking for their consent to participate in the study. The inclusion criteria included adult participants over the age of 18 with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis, who were fluent in English or Arabic, and who consented to participate in the study.
Our questionnaire included three sections:
- Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics: Data on gender (male, female), education level (no formal education, primary education, secondary education, university education), age (4 categories), nationality (Qatari, non-Qatari), diabetes duration (less than 1 year, 1 year, 2 years, more than 2 years), number of comorbidities (none, 1, 2, more than 2 comorbidities), and HbA1c level were collected.
- The Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) was utilized to assess patient’s self-management activities related to their diabetes. The tool is composed of 16 items, which are scored on a 4-point scale from 0 (does not apply to me) to 3 (applies to me very much). The DSMQ has 4 sub-scales, namely, Glucose Management (items 1, 4, 6, 10, 12), Dietary Control (items 2, 5, 9, 13), Physical Activity (items 8, 11, 15), and Health-Care Use (items 3, 7, 14). From the 16 items, 9 items that are worded negatively require reverse scoring. Item 16 requests an “overall rating” of self-care, and it is included in the sum scale. The total possible score can range between 0 and 48, with a higher score indicating more effective self-management behavior. Scale scores were calculated as sums of item scores and then transformed to a scale ranging from 0 to 10 for ease of interpretation [15]. The DSMQ is a reliable and valid tool that provides a measurement of diabetes self-management behaviors in relation to glycemic control [15,16]. The DSMQ was translated to Arabic using the standardized forward and backward translation method in order to validate the quality of the translated tool, and it was culturally adapted to the local context. Additionally, the Arabic versions of the questionnaires were reviewed by 10 bilingual adults and by two experts in diabetes.
- The 12-item Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire Short Form (SF-12) was used to evaluate HRQOL. The SF-12 tool assesses patient’s perceived health status and constitutes two components: a physical health component (PC) and a mental health component (MC) [17,18]. Each parameter was calculated by applying an algorithm to generate a score from 0 to 100, with a higher score reflecting a better quality of life. We utilized the Arabic version of the tool, which has been determined to be a valid and reliable tool in previous studies [19,20,21].
Data collection occurred between 14 April and 24 April 2019.
2.3. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 24; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). For a descriptive analysis, frequencies were calculated for categorical variables, and medians were calculated for continuous variables that were not normally distributed. A statistical comparison between groups was conducted using chi-square for categorical data. Binary logistic regression was utilized to examine the relationship between the significant independent factors and the dependent variables. The alpha level was set at 5% for statistical significance.
The PC, MC, and DSMQ variables were each further split into two groups based on the median scores. Participants who scored below the median were classified as “poor” and were given a score of “0”, while those who scored more than or equal to the median were categorized as “good” and were given a score of “1”.
2.4. Ethical Consideration
This study was approved by the Primary Health Care Centers Research Committee on 31 March 2019 (PHCC/RC/19/02/004) and the Qatar University Research Board on 14 April 2019 (QU-IRB 1054-EA/19). Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
3. Results
The study included a total of 105 participants, 51.4% of whom were male. The majority of the participants had either secondary (41.9%) or a university education (40.0%). A total of 66.7% reported having diabetes for more than two years. A total of 47.6% of the participants reported having at least one comorbidity. Almost half of the participants reported having poor DSM (48.6%), poor PC (50.5%), and poor MC (50.5%). The mean HbA1c level was 7.6 ± 1.9 and was reported by less than half of the participants (45.7%) (Table 1).
The associations between the baseline characteristics of the participants with diabetes and their DSM status are presented in Table 2. The majority of females reported poor DSM (69.0% versus 30.0%; p < 0.001). There were no significant associations between age categories, nationality, diabetes duration, comorbidities, and HbA1C level with DSM status.
A further analysis of the DSM subscales releveled that participants with a poor physical activity status were more likely to be males (p = 0.001) and had diabetes for over 2 years (p = 0.024). Similarly, participants with diabetes for over 2 years had poor health care use compared to those with a shorter diabetes duration (79.0% versus 59.0%; p = 0.035). Additionally, females reported poorer glucose management than males (61% versus 39%, p = 0.048), as observed in Table 3.
The associations between the participant’s baseline characteristics and PC and MC QOL statuses are presented in Table 4. Females were more likely to report poor PC compared with males (p < 0.001). Participants with good DSM reported good PC (p < 0.001). The median HbA1C level was higher for participants with poor MC than for participants with good MC (p = 0.011). No association was found between DSM and HRQOL components.
The multivariable logistic regression analysis of significant factors associated with DSM among participants are presented in Table 5. Female participants showed a significantly higher odds of reporting poor DSM than male participants (OR, 4.77; 95% CI, 1.92–11.86; p = 0.001). Participants with secondary education (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04–0.81; p = 0.025) and university education (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04–0.84; p = 0.029) showed a significantly lower odds of reporting poor DSM than participants with no/primary education.
The multivariable logistic regression analysis of the significant factors associated with PC and MC of HRQOL among participants is presented in Table 6. Older participants (in the age categories of 42–50 and >50) showed higher odds of poor PC than younger participants (18–33 years of age) (OR 11.04, 95% CI, 1.47–82.76 and OR 8.32; 95% CI, 1.10–62.86, respectively). Females also had higher odds for poor PC than males (OR 7.08; 95% CI, 2.21–22.67). Participants with a secondary education (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03–0.62; p = 0.010) and university education (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.57; p = 0.008) showed significantly lower odds of reporting poor MC than participants with no/primary education.
4. Discussion
This was a cross-sectional study that revealed important findings related to diabetes self-management practices, health-related quality of life, and associated factors among a sample of patients with diabetes of the primary health care system in Qatar.
Our study found that approximately half of the participants reported poor overall DSM practices, as revealed by the DSM median score. This result is comparable to that of similar studies conducted in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which reported similar DSM median scores of 6.5 and 5.04, respectively, indicating poor self-care habits among their participants [22,23]. Barriers to DSM have been reported extensively in the literature. Locally, in Qatar, a qualitative study shed light on the barriers reported by 29 participants with diabetes [24]. The authors found similar barriers reported in other studies, such as work-related stress, the cost of testing strips, and long working hours; all external barriers. However, with Qatar being a country that hosts 94 other nationalities, culture also plays a major role in how individuals with diabetes perceive their DSM [24].
Furthermore, a related striking result was that less than half of our participants knew their most recent HbA1c value. These findings reflect the low knowledge levels of our participants. A similar study that surveyed adults with type 2 diabetes on their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in Qatar found that participants reported poor knowledge related to diabetes [25]. Another KAP study also from Qatar that surveyed 2400 people from the general public found that the knowledge component had the lowest score. As a matter of fact, 69% of their participants scored low on knowledge related to normal fasting glucose levels [26]. Other studies from the region have confirmed low levels of knowledge related to diabetes [27,28]. Despite the extensive evidence that diabetes self-management education (DSME) is an effective and available resource in improving knowledge related to diabetes, DSM activities, and quality of life, in addition to other diabetes-related clinical outcomes [11,12], attendance remains poor, and, therefore, DSME remains an underutilized resource [29,30].
Education level was found to be a significant predictor in reporting better DSM and better MC in our study. Findings from other studies examining the relationship between education and DSM have been inconsistent. A similar study from the region in which participants with diabetes were surveyed in a primary health care setting about DSM found that participants with formal education reported better DSM [31]. On the contrary, a systematic review found that education was not a significant factor in reporting better DSM [32]. Education level or attainment, a long-standing indicator of socioeconomic status, is a complex and multidimensional factor that should not be measured the traditional way. A limitation to our study is that participants’ previous knowledge and training related to DSM were not taken into account, which may have influenced our results [33].
Furthermore, our study revealed important gender differences in diabetes self-management, as females reported worse DSM habits than males overall, which remained significant in the regression analysis. When we further analyzed the DSMQ, we found that females also reported poorer glucose management than males. Glucose management is an essential cornerstone of DSM that, if not managed properly, could lead to further complications. Sex differences in diabetes self-management and disease outcomes exist, as seen in other studies. Sex differences have been attributed to biological factors, such as differences in hormonal pathophysiology [34,35]. Gender differences, however, are related to complex psychosocial processes that shape human behavior and in turn manipulate the clinical outcomes of diabetes [34]. For example, women in general have poorer glycemic control and are less likely to reach their A1c targets [36,37], which our study results are in line with. Considering the local psychosocial and cultural contexts when comparing our results to other studies conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, we found that our study results are in line with another study from Kuwait in which they found that men scored significantly better on the DSMQ than women [22].
Gender differences in DSM are clearly reported in the literature. Females tend to assume a responsible caregiving role in diabetes self-management toward family members, especially toward their spouses. The literature shows that the support females with diabetes receive from family members, especially from spouses, is less compared to the support that males receive from their female spouses [38,39]. This might be linked to our finding that women reported poorer PC than men. In most studies that examined gender differences in quality of life among individuals with diabetes, it was found that women tended to report worse outcomes than men [5,40]. A study in Qatar that examined the quality of life predictors of individuals with diabetes also found that females tend to report a lower quality of life than males [41].
In addition to gender, we found that older participants reported poorer PC than younger participants. The link between diabetes and the impairment of HRQOL has long been studied and documented. A longitudinal study that included data from 26,344 participants found that participants with a type 2 diabetes M diagnosis had a fivefold increase in the odds of reporting a significantly poorer quality of life [42]. Another longitudinal study that assessed patients with diabetes at a five-year follow-up point also found a deterioration in patients’ reported HRQOL over time [43].
Although our study did not find a direct link at the multivariate level between DSM and HRQOL, it sheds light on other factors associated with DSM and HRQOL. This study had limitations. A main limitation is that it is a cross-sectional study, in which causal relationships cannot be established, in addition to the small sample size of patients, making our results not generalizable.
5. Conclusions
Our study results highlight the importance of providing patients with diabetes with diabetes self-management education to enhance patients’ health literacy, knowledge, and skills needed to successfully self-manage diabetes and to prevent its complications, and ultimately to improve quality of life. Furthermore, these programs should be culturally adapted to suit local needs and to address gender gaps.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.A.H., F.H., O.H.C. and O.M.; methodology, F.H., O.H.C. and O.M.; formal analysis, D.A.H., F.H., O.H.C., O.M. and N.I.; investigation, F.H., O.H.C., O.M. and N.I.; data curation, F.H., O.H.C., O.M. and N.I.; writing—original draft preparation, F.H., O.H.C. and O.M.; writing—review and editing, D.A.H. and N.I.; supervision, D.A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The APC was funded by Qatar National Library.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Primary Health Care Centers Research Committee (PHCC/RC/19/02/004, March 20,2019) and the Qatar University Research Board (QU-IRB 1054-EA/19, 14 April 2019).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Demographic and Geographic Outline. Available online: https://diabetesatlas.org/en/sections/demographic-and-geographic-outline.html (accessed on 5 March 2021).
- Members. Available online: https://idf.org/our-network/regions-members/middle-east-and-north-africa/members/45-qatar.html (accessed on 5 March 2021).
- Awad, S.F.; O’Flaherty, M.; Critchley, J.; Abu-Raddad, L.J. Forecasting the Burden of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Qatar to 2050: A Novel Modeling Approach. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2018, 137, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jing, X.; Chen, J.; Dong, Y.; Han, D.; Zhao, H.; Wang, X.; Gao, F.; Li, C.; Cui, Z.; Liu, Y.; et al. Related Factors of Quality of Life of Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2018, 16, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rubin, R.R.; Peyrot, M. Quality of Life and Diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 1999, 15, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HRQOL Concepts|CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/concept.htm (accessed on 17 December 2021).
- Jain, V.; Shivkumar, S.; Gupta, O. Health-Related Quality of Life (Hr-Qol) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. N. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2014, 6, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Trikkalinou, A.; Papazafiropoulou, A.K.; Melidonis, A. Type 2 Diabetes and Quality of Life. World J. Diabetes 2017, 8, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adu, M.D.; Malabu, U.H.; Malau-Aduli, A.E.O.; Malau-Aduli, B.S. Enablers and Barriers to Effective Diabetes Self-Management: A Multi-National Investigation. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0217771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- AADE7 Self-Care Behaviors for Managing Diabetes Effectively. Available online: https://www.diabeteseducator.org/living-with-diabetes/aade7-self-care-behaviors (accessed on 13 March 2021).
- Mikhael, E.M.; Hassali, M.A.; Hussain, S.A. Effectiveness of Diabetes Self-Management Educational Programs For Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients In Middle East Countries: A Systematic Review. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. Targets Ther. 2020, 13, 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chrvala, C.A.; Sherr, D.; Lipman, R.D. Diabetes Self-Management Education for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of the Effect on Glycemic Control. Patient Educ. Couns. 2016, 99, 926–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cunningham, A.T.; Crittendon, D.R.; White, N.; Mills, G.D.; Diaz, V.; LaNoue, M.D. The Effect of Diabetes Self-Management Education on HbA1c and Quality of Life in African-Americans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018, 18, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yfantopoulos, I.; Katopodis, P.; Rombopoulos, G.; Yallouridis, A.; Chantzaras, A.; Kossiva, E.; Varounis, C. The Influence of Glycemic Control in the Quality of Life of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in Greece-the Hypo2 Study. Value Health 2016, 19, A679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, A.; Gahr, A.; Hermanns, N.; Kulzer, B.; Huber, J.; Haak, T. The Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ): Development and Evaluation of an Instrument to Assess Diabetes Self-Care Activities Associated with Glycaemic Control. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2013, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schmitt, A.; Reimer, A.; Hermanns, N.; Huber, J.; Ehrmann, D.; Schall, S.; Kulzer, B. Assessing Diabetes Self-Management with the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) Can Help Analyse Behavioural Problems Related to Reduced Glycaemic Control. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Melville, M.R.; Lari, M.A.; Brown, N.; Young, T.; Gray, D. Quality of Life Assessment Using the Short Form 12 Questionnaire Is as Reliable and Sensitive as the Short Form 36 in Distinguishing Symptom Severity in Myocardial Infarction Survivors. Heart 2003, 89, 1445–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ware, J.E.; Kosinski, M.; Keller, S.D. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of Scales and Preliminary Tests of Reliability and Validity. Med. Care 1996, 34, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al Sayah, F.; Ishaque, S.; Lau, D.; Johnson, J.A. Health Related Quality of Life Measures in Arabic Speaking Populations: A Systematic Review on Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Measurement Properties. Qual. Life Res. 2013, 22, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coons, S.J.; Alabdulmohsin, S.A.; Draugalis, J.R.; Hays, R.D. Reliability of an Arabic Version of the RAND-36 Health Survey and Its Equivalence to the US-English Version. Med. Care 1998, 36, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheikh, K.A.; Yagoub, U.; Elsatouhy, M.; Al Sanosi, R.; Mohamud, S.A. Reliability and Validity of the Arabic Version of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in Population of Khat Chewers—Jazan Region-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2015, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Khaledi, M.; Al-Dousari, H.; Al-Dhufairi, S.; Al-Mousawi, T.; Al-Azemi, R.; Al-Azimi, F.; Badr, H.E. Diabetes Self-Management: A Key to Better Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Diabetes. Med. Princ. Pract. 2018, 27, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qahtani, A.M. Frequency and Factors Associated with Inadequate Self-Care Behaviors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Najran, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med. J. 2020, 41, 955–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, M.M.; Al-Wattary, N.A.; Khudadad, H.; Dughmosh, R.; Furuya-Kanamori, L.; Doi, S.A.R.; Daher-Nashif, S. Perspectives of Persons with Type 2 Diabetes toward Diabetes Self-Management: A Qualitative Study. Health Educ. Behav. 2022, 49, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, H.; A-Lenjawi, B.; Amouna, P.; Zotor, F.; El Mahdi, H.; Barakat, N. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Type2 Arab Diabetic Patients in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Diabetes Dev. Ctries. 2015, 35, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Mutawaa, K.A.; Farghaly, A.H.; Nasir, R.; Loares, A.M.; Skaroni, I.; Al-Thani, M.; Abou-Samra, A.-B. Level of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards Diabetes among Nationals and Long-Term Residents of Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e052607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alharthi, A.S.; Althobaiti, K.A.; Alswat, K.A. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Knowledge Assessment among Saudi Women. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 6, 1522–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hashim, M.J.; Mustafa, H.; Ali, H. Knowledge of Diabetes among Patients in the United Arab Emirates and Trends since 2001: A Study Using the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test. EMHJ-East. Mediterr. Health J. 2016, 22, 742–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alsayed Hassan, D.; Curtis, A.; Kerver, J.; Vangsnes, E. Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support: Referral and Attendance at a Patient-Centered Medical Home. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2020, 11, 2150132720967232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, H.; Al-Lenjawi, B.; Amuna, P.; Zotor, F.; Elmahdi, H. Culturally Sensitive Patient-Centred Educational Programme for Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Prim. Care Diabetes 2013, 7, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, J.A.; Abdulhadi, N.N.; Al-Maniri, A.A.; Al-Shafaee, M.A.; Wahlström, R. Diabetes Self-Management and Education of People Living with Diabetes: A Survey in Primary Health Care in Muscat Oman. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, L.A.; Ackerman, M.T.; Greevy, R.A.; Wallston, K.A.; Mayberry, L.S. Beyond Race Disparities: Accounting for Socioeconomic Status in Diabetes Self-Care. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2019, 57, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shavers, V.L. Measurement of Socioeconomic Status in Health Disparities Research. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2007, 99, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar]
- Kautzky-Willer, A.; Harreiter, J.; Pacini, G. Sex and Gender Differences in Risk, Pathophysiology and Complications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Endocr. Rev. 2016, 37, 278–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seghieri, G.; Policardo, L.; Anichini, R.; Franconi, F.; Campesi, I.; Cherchi, S.; Tonolo, G. The Effect of Sex and Gender on Diabetic Complications. Curr. Diabetes Rev. 2017, 13, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnetz, L.; Ekberg, N.R.; Alvarsson, M. Sex Differences in Type 2 Diabetes: Focus on Disease Course and Outcomes. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. Targets Ther. 2014, 7, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campesi, I.; Seghieri, G.; Franconi, F. Type 2 Diabetic Women Are Not Small Type 2 Diabetic Men: Sex-and-Gender Differences in Antidiabetic Drugs. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2021, 60, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhaloo, T.; Juma, M.; Criscuolo-Higgins, C. A Solution-Focused Approach to Understanding Patient Motivation in Diabetes Self-Management: Gender Differences and Implications for Primary Care. Chronic Illn. 2018, 14, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darawad, M.W.; Hammad, S.; Mosleh, S.; Samarkandi, O.A.; Hamdan-Mansour, A.; Khalil, A.A.; Arabiat, D. Psychosocial Correlates of Diabetes Self-Management Practices. Iran. J. Public Health 2017, 46, 771–781. [Google Scholar]
- Undén, A.-L.; Elofsson, S.; Andréasson, A.; Hillered, E.; Eriksson, I.; Brismar, K. Gender Differences in Self-Rated Health, Quality of Life, Quality of Care, and Metabolic Control in Patients with Diabetes. Gend. Med. 2008, 5, 162–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasralla Saleh, M.S.; Alwahedi, Z. Quality of Life Predictors and Glycemic Control among Type 2 Diabetic Patients Attending Primary Health Care Centers in Qatar. Prim. Health Care Open Access 2016, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feng, X.; Astell-Burt, T. Impact of a Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis on Mental Health, Quality of Life, and Social Contacts: A Longitudinal Study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 2017, 5, e000198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.; Arima, H.; Woodward, M.; Chalmers, J.; Poulter, N.; Hamet, P.; Clarke, P. Changes in Quality of Life Associated with Complications of Diabetes: Results from the ADVANCE Study. Value Health 2016, 19, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the patients.
| Variables | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Age categories | ||
| 18–33 years | 16 | 15.2 |
| 34–41 years | 22 | 21.0 |
| 42–50 years | 31 | 29.5 |
| >50 years | 36 | 34.3 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 54 | 51.4 |
| Female | 51 | 48.6 |
| Education level | ||
| No/primary education | 19 | 18.1 |
| Secondary education | 44 | 41.9 |
| University education | 42 | 40.0 |
| Duration of Diabetes | ||
| ≤2 years | 35 | 33.3 |
| >2 years | 70 | 66.7 |
| Comorbidities | ||
| None | 36 | 34.3 |
| 1 | 50 | 47.6 |
| 2 | 11 | 10.5 |
| >2 | 8 | 7.6 |
| DSM | ||
| Poor | 51 | 48.6 |
| Good | 54 | 51.4 |
| PC HRQOL | ||
| Poor | 53 | 50.5 |
| Good | 52 | 49.5 |
| MC HRQOL | ||
| Poor | 53 | 50.5 |
| Good | 52 | 49.5 |
| Variables | Mean (±SD) | Median (IQR) |
| HbA1C (n = 48) | 7.6 (±1.9) | 7.1 (6.3–8.4) |
| DSM score | 7.2 (±1.8) | 7.1 (5.8–8.8) |
| PC HRQOL score | 47.8 (±9.8) | 48.2 (40.7–56.6) |
| MC HRQOL score | 46.7 (±10.3) | 47.1 (38.9–55.6) |
Continuous variables presented as mean ± standard deviations. Categorical variables presented as n (%).
Table 2.
Diabetes self-management status according to baseline characteristics of participants.
| Diabetes Self-Management | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Poor (N = 51) n (%) | Good (N = 54) n (%) | p-Value |
| Age categories | |||
| 18–33 years | 9 (18.0%) | 7 (13.0%) | 0.770 |
| 34–41 years | 11 (22.0%) | 11 (20.0%) | |
| 42–50 years | 16 (31.0%) | 15 (28.0%) | |
| >50 years | 15 (29.0%) | 21 (39.0%) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 16 (31.0%) | 38 (70.0%) | <0.001 |
| Female | 35 (69.0%) | 16 (30.0%) | |
| Education level | |||
| No/primary education | 14 (27.0%) | 5 (9.0%) | 0.052 |
| Secondary education | 19 (37.0%) | 25 (46.0%) | |
| University education | 18 (35.0%) | 24 (44.0%) | |
| Duration of Diabetes | |||
| ≤2 years | 19 (37.0%) | 16 (30.0%) | 0.420 |
| >2 years | 32 (63.0%) | 38 (70.0%) | |
| Comorbidities | |||
| None | 19 (37.0%) | 17 (31.0%) | 0.830 |
| 1 | 23 (45.0%) | 27 (50.0%) | |
| 2 | 6 (12.0%) | 5 (9.0%) | |
| >2 | 3 (6.0%) | 5 (9.0%) | |
| HbA1C [Median(IQR)] | 8.0 (6.4–8.4) | 7.0 (6.2–8.3) | 0.256 |
Table 3.
Diabetes self-management subscales status according to participants’ baseline characteristics.
Table 3.
Diabetes self-management subscales status according to participants’ baseline characteristics.
| Glucose Management | Dietary Control | Physical Activity | Health Care Use | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Poor (N = 41) n (%) | Good (N = 64) n (%) | p-Value | Poor (N = 22) n (%) | Good (N = 83) n (%) | p-Value | Poor (N = 30) n (%) | Good (N = 75) n (%) | p-Value | Poor (N = 39) n (%) | Good (N = 66) n (%) | p-Value |
| Age | ||||||||||||
| 18–33 years | 5 (12.0%) | 11 (17.0%) | 0.560 | 3 (14.0%) | 13 (16.0%) | 0.760 | 3 (10.0%) | 13 (17.0%) | 0.096 | 5 (13.0%) | 11 (17.0%) | 0.120 |
| 34–41 years | 11 (27.0%) | 11 (17.0%) | 3 (14.0%) | 19 (23.0%) | 5 (17.0%) | 17 (23.0%) | 7 (18.0%) | 15 (23.0%) | ||||
| 42–50 years | 13 (32.0%) | 18 (28.0%) | 8 (36.0%) | 23 (28.0%) | 6 (20.0%) | 25 (33.0%) | 8 (21.0%) | 23 (35.0%) | ||||
| >50 years | 12 (29.0%) | 24 (38.0%) | 8 (36.0%) | 28 (34.0%) | 16 (53.0%) | 20 (27.0%) | 19 (49.0%) | 17 (26.0%) | ||||
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | 16 (39.0%) | 38 (59.0%) | 0.048 | 10 (45.0%) | 44 (53.0%) | 0.630 | 23 (77.0%) | 31 (41.0%) | 0.001 | 24 (62.0%) | 30 (45.0%) | 0.160 |
| Female | 25 (61.0%) | 26 (41.0%) | 12 (55.0%) | 39 (47.0%) | 7 (23.0%) | 44 (59.0%) | 15 (38.0%) | 36 (55.0%) | ||||
| Education level | ||||||||||||
| No/primary education | 6 (15.0%) | 13 (20.0%) | 0.810 | 4 (18.0%) | 15 (18.0%) | 0.950 | 5 (17.0%) | 14 (19.0%) | 0.580 | 5 (13.0%) | 14 (21.0%) | 0.580 |
| Secondary education | 18 (44.0%) | 26 (41.0%) | 10 (45.0%) | 34 (41.0%) | 15 (50.0%) | 29 (39.0%) | 17 (44.0%) | 27 (41.0%) | ||||
| University education | 17 (41.0%) | 25 (39.0%) | 8 (36.0%) | 34 (41.0%) | 10 (33.0%) | 32 (43.0%) | 17 (44.0%) | 25 (38.0%) | ||||
| Duration of Diabetes | ||||||||||||
| ≤2 years | 13 (32.0%) | 22 (34.0%) | 0.830 | 7 (32.0%) | 28 (34.0%) | 1.00 | 5 (17.0%) | 30 (40.0%) | 0.024 | 8 (21.0%) | 27 (41.0%) | 0.035 |
| >2 years | 28 (68.0%) | 42 (66.0%) | 15 (68.0%) | 55 (66.0%) | 25 (83.0%) | 45 (60.0%) | 31 (79.0%) | 39 (59.0%) | ||||
| Comorbidities | ||||||||||||
| None | 14 (34.0%) | 22 (34.0%) | 0.970 | 9 (41.0%) | 27 (33.0%) | 0.840 | 11 (37.0%) | 25 (33.0%) | 0.500 | 13 (33.0%) | 23 (35.0%) | 0.530 |
| 1 | 19 (46.0%) | 31 (48.0%) | 9 (41.0%) | 41 (49.0%) | 15 (50.0%) | 35 (47.0%) | 17 (44.0%) | 33 (50.0%) | ||||
| 2 | 5 (12.0%) | 6 (9.0%) | 2 (9.0%) | 9 (11.0%) | 1 (3.0%) | 10 (13.0%) | 4 (10.0%) | 7 (11.0%) | ||||
| >2 | 3 (7.0%) | 5 (8.0%) | 2 (9.0%) | 6 (7.0%) | 3 (10.0%) | 5 (7.0%) | 5 (13.0%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||||
| HbA1C [Median(IQR)] | 7.0 (6.4–8.0) | 7.4 (6.2–8.6) | 0.655 | 7.1 (6.4–8.2) | 7.1 (6.1–8.7) | 0.892 | 7.0 (6.4–8.3) | 7.4 (6.2–8.4) | 0.779 | 7.0 (6.4–8.2) | 7.7 (6.2–8.5) | 0.620 |
Table 4.
PC and MC of HRQOL status according to baseline characteristics of participants with diabetes attending PHCC in Qatar.
Table 4.
PC and MC of HRQOL status according to baseline characteristics of participants with diabetes attending PHCC in Qatar.
| PC HRQOL Status | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Poor (N = 53) n (%) | Good (N = 52) n (%) | p-Value | Poor (N = 53) n (%) | Good (N = 52) n (%) | p-Value |
| Age categories | ||||||
| 18–33 years | 6 (11.0%) | 10 (19.0%) | 0.273 | 8 (15.0%) | 8 (15.0%) | 0.296 |
| 34–41 years | 10 (19.0%) | 12 (23.0%) | 14 (26.0%) | 8 (15.0%) | ||
| 42–50 years | 20 (38.0%) | 11 (21.0%) | 17 (32.0%) | 14 (27.0%) | ||
| >50 years | 17 (32.0%) | 19 (37.0%) | 14 (26.0%) | 22 (42.0%) | ||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 17 (32.0%) | 37 (71.0%) | <0.001 | 27 (51.0%) | 27 (52.0%) | 0.92 |
| Female | 36 (68.0%) | 15 (29.0%) | 26 (49.0%) | 25 (48.0%) | ||
| Education level | ||||||
| No/primary education | 13 (25.0%) | 6 (12.0%) | 0.180 | 12 (23.0%) | 7 (13.0%) | 0.434 |
| Secondary education | 22 (42.0%) | 22 (42.0%) | 20 (38.0%) | 24 (46.0%) | ||
| University education | 18 (34.0%) | 24 (46.0%) | 21 (40.0%) | 21 (40.0%) | ||
| Duration of Diabetes | ||||||
| ≤2 years | 19 (36.0%) | 16 (31.0%) | 0.581 | 19 (36.0%) | 16 (31.0%) | 0.581 |
| >2 years | 34 (64.0%) | 36 (69.0%) | 34 (64.0%) | 36 (69.0%) | ||
| Comorbidities | ||||||
| None | 20 (38.0%) | 16 (31.0%) | 0.387 | 16 (30.0%) | 20 (38.0%) | 0.105 |
| 1 | 21 (40.0%) | 29 (56.0%) | 31 (58.0%) | 19 (37.0%) | ||
| 2 | 7 (13.0%) | 4 (8.0%) | 4 (8.0%) | 7 (13.0%) | ||
| >2 | 5 (9.0%) | 3 (6.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 6 (12.0%) | ||
| DSM | ||||||
| Poor | 35 (66.0%) | 16 (31.0%) | <0.001 | 27 (51.0%) | 24 (46.0%) | 0.623 |
| Good | 18 (34.0%) | 36 (69.0%) | 26 (49.0%) | 28 (54.0%) | ||
| HbA1C [Median(IQR)] | 8.1(6.5–8.7) | 7(6.2–8.0) | 0.062 | 8.3 (7.6–8.8) | 6.8 (6.2–7.4) | 0.011 |
PC HRQOL, physical health component of health-related quality of life; MC HRQOL, mental health component of health-related quality of life; DSM, diabetes self- management.
Table 5.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis of diabetes self-management among diabetic participants attending PHCC in Qatar.
Table 5.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis of diabetes self-management among diabetic participants attending PHCC in Qatar.
| Variables | Crude OR | p-Value | 95% CI | Adjusted OR | p-Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Diabetes Self-Management | ||||||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Female | 5.20 | <0.001 | 2.26–11.93 | 4.77 | 0.001 | 1.92–11.86 |
| Education level | ||||||
| No/primary education | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Secondary education | 0.27 | 0.031 | 0.08–0.89 | 0.18 | 0.025 | 0.04–0.81 |
| University education | 0.27 | 0.030 | 0.08–0.89 | 0.18 | 0.029 | 0.04–0.84 |
| Subscales | ||||||
| Glucose Management | ||||||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Female | 2.28 | 0.043 | 1.02–5.09 | 2.42 | 0.050 | 0.99–5.87 |
Table 6.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis of poor PC and MC of QOL among participants with diabetes attending PHCC in Qatar.
Table 6.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis of poor PC and MC of QOL among participants with diabetes attending PHCC in Qatar.
| QOL | Crude OR | p-Value | 95% CI | Adjusted OR | p-Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC HRQOL | ||||||
| Age categories | ||||||
| 18–33 years | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 34–41 years | 1.39 | 0.624 | 0.37–5.17 | 2.44 | 0.314 | 0.43–13.87 |
| 42–50 years | 3.03 | 0.082 | 0.87–10.59 | 11.04 | 0.019 | 1.47–82.76 |
| >50 years | 1.49 | 0.516 | 0.45–4.98 | 8.32 | 0.040 | 1.10–62.86 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Female | 5.22 | <0.001 | 2.27–12.1 | 7.08 | 0.001 | 2.21–22.67 |
| MC HRQOL | ||||||
| Education level | ||||||
| No/primary education | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Secondary education | 0.49 | 0.201 | 0.16–1.47 | 0.13 | 0.010 | 0.03–0.62 |
| University education | 0.58 | 0.342 | 0.19–1.77 | 0.11 | 0.008 | 0.02–0.57 |
PC HRQOL, physical health component of health-related quality of life; MC HRQOL, mental health component of health-related quality of life.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Alsayed Hassan, D.; Helaluddin, F.; Chahestani, O.H.; Mohamed, O.; Islam, N. Diabetes Self-Management and Health-Related Quality of Life among Primary Care Patients with Diabetes in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112124
AMA Style
Alsayed Hassan D, Helaluddin F, Chahestani OH, Mohamed O, Islam N. Diabetes Self-Management and Health-Related Quality of Life among Primary Care Patients with Diabetes in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare. 2022; 10(11):2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112124
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlsayed Hassan, Diana, Fatema Helaluddin, Ozra Hajebi Chahestani, Omnia Mohamed, and Nazmul Islam. 2022. "Diabetes Self-Management and Health-Related Quality of Life among Primary Care Patients with Diabetes in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study" Healthcare 10, no. 11: 2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112124
APA StyleAlsayed Hassan, D., Helaluddin, F., Chahestani, O. H., Mohamed, O., & Islam, N. (2022). Diabetes Self-Management and Health-Related Quality of Life among Primary Care Patients with Diabetes in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare, 10(11), 2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112124
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
