Search

Diabetes distress has implications for diabetes end-points, hence targeted interventions are indicated; yet, preliminary work quantifying and characterising the problem is required. We sought to identify the potential magnitude and determinants of elevated diabetes distress across study populations. Databases such as Medline, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for studies (n ≥50) administering the problem areas in Diabetes scale or Diabetes Distress scale, in adults with Type 1 or 2 diabetes. Random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression estimated the average rate of elevated diabetes distress and prognostic contribution of age, gender, HbA1c, and health-care context. Of the 16,627 citations identified, adequate data were available for 58 studies. On average, 22% of participants reported elevated diabetes distress. Only female gender and secondary care predicted a higher rate of elevated diabetes distress. A quarter of people with diabetes have a level of distress likely to impact outcomes. Secondary-ca...

AimsTo identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which diabetes distress (DD) was assessed in adults under experimental conditions and to undertake meta-analysis of intervention components to determine effective interventions for reducing DD.MethodsSystematic review searching Medline, Psychinfo and Embase to March 2013 for studies measuring DD. Two reviewers assessed citations and full papers for eligibility based on RCT design and Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale or Diabetes Distress Scale outcome measure. Interventions were categorised by content and medium of delivery. Meta-analyses were undertaken by intervention category where ≥7 studies were available. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were computed and combined in a random effects meta-analysis.ResultsOf 16 627 citations reviewed, 41 RCTs involving 6650 participants were included. Twenty-one a priori meta-analyses were undertaken. Effective interventions were psycho-education (−0.21 [−0.33, −0.09]), generalist interventionist (−0.19 [−0.31, −0.08]), ≥6 sessions (−0.14 [−0.26, −0.03]) and ≥3 months duration (−0.14 [−0.24, −0.03]). Motivational interviewing reduced DD (−0.09 [−0.18, −0.00]) and improved baseline elevated glycaemia (−0.16 [−0.28, −0.04]). Although statistical significance was observed most effect sizes were below 0.2.ConclusionThe review signposts interventions likely to reduce elevated DD in Type 1 and Type 2 and across the age profile. Interventional research is needed and warranted targeting elevated distress.