When Is Social Support Important? The Association of Family Support and Professional Support with Specific Diabetes Self-management Behaviors
When Is Social Support Important? The Association of Family Support and Professional Support with Specific Diabetes Self-management Behaviors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11606-008-0814-7
复制
发表时间：
2008-12-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Heisler, Michele
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rosland, Ann-Marie;Kieffer, Edith;Heisler, Michele
背景技术背景：社会支持与更好的糖尿病自我管理行为（SMB）相关，但增加家人和朋友支持的干预措施目的：检验FF支持对特定中小企业的影响是否存在差异，并比较医护人员支持和心理因素对特定中小企业的影响。设计：对糖尿病患者进行自我管理干预的横断面调查参与者和设置：164名居住在底特律市中心的非洲裔美国人和拉丁美洲成年糖尿病患者测量和主要结果：对于血糖监测的FF支持每增加一个单位，按照建议完成检测的校正比值比（AOR）为1.77（95% CI 1.21-2.58）。FF支持与其他四家中小型企业（服药、遵循膳食计划、体育活动、检查脚部）无关。非医生健康专业人员的支持与检查足部[AOR 1.72（1.07-2.78）]和膳食计划依从性[AOR = 1.61（1.11-2.34）]相关。糖尿病自我效能与测糖、饮食计划坚持和检查脚有关.额外的分析表明，自我效能是调解FF支持的影响，饮食和检查脚，但不是FF支持血糖monitoring.CONCLUSIONS效果：FF支持和SMB性能之间的关联是更强的血糖监测比其他中小企业。专业支持和糖尿病自我效能与不同中小企业的绩效独立相关。中小型企业干预可能需要根据需要改进的中小型企业，有区别地强调FF支持、自我效能或专业支持。
BACKGROUND: Social support is associated with better diabetes self-management behavior (SMB), yet interventions to increase family and friend support (FF support) have had inconsistent effects on SMB.OBJECTIVE: To test whether FF support differentially affects specific SMBs and compare the influence of support from health professionals and psychological factors on specific SMBs to that of FF support.DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of people with diabetes recruited for a self-management interventionPARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: One hundred sixty-four African-American and Latino adults with diabetes living in inner-city DetroitMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For every unit increase in FF support for glucose monitoring, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of completing testing as recommended was 1.77 (95% CI 1.21-2.58). FF support was not associated with four other SMBs (taking medicines, following a meal plan, physical activity, checking feet). Support from non-physician health professionals was associated with checking feet [AOR 1.72 (1.07-2.78)] and meal plan adherence [AOR = 1.61 (1.11-2.34)]. Diabetes self- efficacy was associated with testing sugar, meal plan adherence, and checking feet. Additional analyses suggested that self- efficacy was mediating the effect of FF support on diet and checking feet, but not the FF support effect on glucose monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: The association between FF support and SMB performance was stronger for glucose monitoring than for other SMBs. Professional support and diabetes self- efficacy were each independently associated with performance of different SMBs. SMB interventions may need to differentially emphasize FF support, self-efficacy, or professional support depending on the SMB targeted for improvement.