Mental distress and health‐related quality of life among type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients using self‐monitoring of blood glucose: A cross‐sectional questionnaire study in Japan.

Abstract: Aims/Introduction: The present multicenter, cross‐sectional survey was initiated to evaluate self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)‐associated mental distress among patients with diabetes. Materials and Methods: The survey was carried out in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes using SMBG recruited from 42 medical institutions. Profiles of Mood States 2 and diabetes therapy‐related quality of life questionnaires were used to evaluate mood status and health‐related quality of life. Two original questionnaires were also developed to evaluate SMBG ‘importance,’ ‘painfulness’ and ‘confidence’ among patients, and to evaluate physician attitudes to SMBG use. Results: Questionnaires from 517 type 1 diabetes and 1,648 type 2 diabetes patients showed that 46.0% of type 1 diabetes and 37.5% of type 2 diabetes patients reported ‘painfulness,’ and that these patients reporting ‘painfulness’ showed significantly higher Profiles of Mood States 2 scores, lower diabetes therapy‐related quality of life scores and higher glycated hemoglobin compared with those not reporting ‘painfulness,’ whereas the number of their daily SMBG tests were comparable. Patients reporting ‘painfulness’ also reported that SMBG use was significantly less important. Whether or not patients recognized the importance of SMBG use was well correlated with the frequency of physicians checking patient diaries. Conclusions: Type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients reporting ‘painfulness’ in SMBG use had more mental distress, lower health‐related quality of life and higher glycated hemoglobin regardless of their number of daily SMBG tests. The importance of SMBG use was recognized less by patients experiencing pain, and the importance of SMBG use was recognized more in medical institutions in which physicians regularly checked SMBG diaries to provide meaningful feedback to patients in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]