Search

Aim: To examine (1) the mediating role of self‐efficacy between resilience and self‐management behaviours and (2) the moderating role of diabetes distress on the relationship between self‐efficacy and self‐management behaviours in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Design: Cross‐sectional design. Methods: Totally, 195 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for more than 5 months but less than 18 months were recruited from three endocrine clinics in Taiwan through convenience sampling. Self‐reported questionnaires including demographic and disease characteristics, resilience, self‐efficacy and self‐management behaviours were used to collect data from October 2020 to May 2021. Moderated mediation analysis was performed by Hayes's PROCESS macro. Result: According to bootstrapping results, the indirect effect of resilience on self‐management was significant, although the direct effect of resilience on self‐management was not. Participants were categorized into with and without diabetes distress groups. The results of moderated mediation analysis indicated self‐efficacy significantly correlated with self‐management behaviours in participants without diabetes distress, although self‐efficacy did not significantly correlate with self‐management in participants with diabetes distress. Conclusion: The association of resilience with self‐management behaviours was fully mediated through self‐efficacy with diabetes distress moderating the relationship between self‐efficacy and self‐management behaviours in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Impact Improving resilience could enhance self‐efficacy leading to possible improvement in self‐management behaviour, although improving self‐efficacy might not benefit self‐management behaviours for those with high levels of diabetes distress. Healthcare providers need to first assess and address the diabetes distress before intervening to improve self‐efficacy to enhance self‐management behaviours in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Patient or Public Contribution: When designing this study, two patients newly diagnosed with diabetes were consulted about the importance of self‐management behaviours for them personally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore the risk factors of falls and the gender differences based on demographic and disease characteristics, physical capability, and fear of falling in older adults with diabetes visiting outpatient clinics in Taiwan. Design: Cross‐sectional design. Methods: A total of 485 patients with type 2 diabetes aged between 65 and 80 years were recruited from three endocrine outpatient clinics in Taiwan. Demographic and disease characteristics, fall history in the previous one year and fear of falling were collected by a self‐reported questionnaire. Calf circumference, handgrip strength, one‐leg standing and time up‐and‐go tests were all performed to assess the physical capability of participants. Data were collected from May 2019 to May 2020. Results: Female gender (OR = 1.75), handgrip strength (OR = 2.43) and fear of falling (OR = 3.38) were important risk factors of falls overall, although fear of falling (OR = 4.69) was the only important risk factor of falls in males, while handgrip strength (OR = 3.48) and fear of falling (OR = 2.86) were important risk factors of falls in females. The sensitivity of simultaneous screening handgrip strength and fear of falling were 85.7, 86.4 and 86.2 in males, females and older adults overall with diabetes, respectively. Conclusion: Fear of falling was an important risk factor of falls in both genders, especially in males. Handgrip strength was an important risk factor of falls specifically for females. By simultaneously screening fear of falling and handgrip strength, risk of falls in older adults with diabetes at outpatient clinics could be identified in a more timely manner. Impact Nurses could periodically and simultaneously assess fear of falling and handgrip strength of older adults with diabetes at outpatient clinics. For those are identified at risk of falls on either fear of falling or handgrip strength, nurses could provide corresponding interventions to reduce the fear of falling or improve muscle strength to prevent such falls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To develop and psychometrically test Character Strengths Use in Diabetes Self‐management Scale in people with type 2 diabetes. Design: Cross‐sectional design. Methods: Based on literature reviews and examination by experts, a 20‐item scale was developed and administered to 350 participants with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled from two endocrine clinics by convenience sampling in Taiwan. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), concurrent and predictive validity as well as reliability were used to examine the psychometric characteristics of the scale. Data were collected from November 2021 to March 2022. Results: EFA and CFA supported a 12‐item scale with three factors, namely learning proactively, taking on challenges and thinking positively, fit the data well. The total score of the 12‐item scale significantly and positively correlated with diabetes‐specific quality of life, and significantly and negatively correlated with baseline and 9‐month haemoglobin A1c levels. Cronbach's α for overall scale and subscales ranged between.78 and.91. Conclusion: The 12‐item Character Strengths Use in Diabetes Self‐management Scale demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability in people with type 2 diabetes. Impact: Nurses could apply this new scale to identify the degree of using character strengths in self‐management in people with type 2 diabetes; accordingly, character strength‐based interventions could be provided to improve self‐management in such patients with diabetes. Furthermore, the 12‐item Character Strengths Use in Diabetes Self‐management Scale has the potential to be used to measure the effectiveness of strength‐based interventions in people with Type 2 diabetes. Patient or Public Contribution: Five patients with type 2 diabetes were invited to take the original 20‐item scale to evaluate the clarity, readability and comprehensiveness of the 20 items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]