Next Article in Journal
Post-COVID-19 Tourists’ Preferences, Attitudes and Travel Expectations: A Study in Guayaquil, Ecuador
Next Article in Special Issue
A Concept Analysis of Illness Intrusiveness in Chronic Disease: Application of the Hybrid Model Method
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Players’ Sportspersonship Attitude, Expectancy-Related Beliefs, and Subjective Task Values in Field Hockey: An Integrated Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Let It Beat: How Lifestyle and Psychosocial Factors Affect the Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death—A 10-Year Follow-Up Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 8
10.3390/ijerph19084818
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Increased Patient Empowerment Is Associated with Improvement in Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Findings from the INDICA Study

by
Andrea Duarte-Díaz
1,2,
Himar González-Pacheco
1,
Amado Rivero-Santana
1,3,4,
Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña
1,3,4,
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez
3,4,5,*,
Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez
1,4,
Wenceslao Peñate
2,
Carme Carrion
6,
Pedro Serrano-Aguilar
3,4,5 and
on behalf of the INDICA Team
†
1
Canary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation (FIISC), 38109 El Rosario, Spain
2
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain
3
Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), 38109 El Rosario, Spain
4
Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), 38109 El Rosario, Spain
5
Evaluation Unit (SESCS), Canary Islands Health Service (SCS), 38109 El Rosario, Spain
6
eHealth Lab Research Group, School of Health Sciences, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), 08035 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Collaborators of the INDICA Team are provided in the Supplementary Materials.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(8), 4818; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084818
Submission received: 25 February 2022 / Revised: 11 April 2022 / Accepted: 13 April 2022 / Published: 15 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chronic Diseases: Biopsychosocial Impact, Interventions and Preventive Measures)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction. In cross-sectional analyses, higher levels of patient empowerment have been related to lower symptoms of anxiety and depression. The aims of this study are: (1) to assess if patient empowerment predicts anxiety and depression symptoms after 12 and 24 months among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and (2) to analyze whether a change in patient empowerment is associated with a change in anxiety and depression level. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of the INDICA study, a 24 month-long, multi-arm randomized controlled trial. Patient empowerment (DES-SF), depression (BDI-II), and state-anxiety (STAI-S) were assessed at the baseline (pre-intervention) and after 12 and 24 months. Multilevel mixed linear models with a random intercept were performed to correct for our clustered data. Results. The multilevel regression models showed that the baseline empowerment did not significantly predict anxiety and depression after 12 and 24 months. However, a higher increase in patient empowerment was significantly associated with reductions of anxiety (p < 0.001) and depression levels (p < 0.001). This association was not significantly different between the two follow-ups. Conclusion. This study contributes to the knowledge on how to reduce affective symptoms in patients with uncomplicated T2DM through comprehensive patient-centered interventions, and it highlights patient empowerment as a significant contributor.

1. Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by the presence of hyperglycemia due to an impairment of insulin secretion, defective insulin action, or both [1]. DM constitutes a growing public health problem. Worldwide DM prevalence in adults from 20 to 79 years old in 2021 was estimated to be 10.5% (536.6 million people), and it is expected to rise to 12.2% (783.2 million people) in 2045 [2]. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) represents over 90% of DM cases around the world [3], and the continued rise to 2045 is projected to be greater for T2DM patients [2]. In Spain, according to a nation-wide population-based study, the incidence of T2DM was recently estimated to be 11.6 cases/1000 person-year [4], and the prevalence rate has been found to be higher in the Canary Islands than in the rest of the country [5].
Depression is a very common comorbidity in patients with T2DM. Almost one in four European adults suffer from different severity levels of depressive disorders [6], with only slightly lower prevalence rates in Spain [7]. Additionally, an international study has shown that people with T2DM have a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders, especially women, with diabetes-related complications, increased duration of the illness, and poorer glycemic control [8]. Affective and emotional disorders in patients with T2DM have been associated with non-adherence to medication [9], diet, and physical activity [10,11] and also with poorer quality of life [12]. Despite this evidence, recognizing and addressing psychological symptoms in T2DM healthcare management remain challenging. Identifying and treating mental health comorbidities among patients with diabetes must be a priority [13], and specific strategies should be considered in effective diabetes management programs to reduce its impact on health outcomes [14].
According to the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, psychological care should be integrated with a collaborative, patient-centered approach and provided to all people with diabetes to optimize health outcomes and quality of life [15,16]. In their position statement about psychological care for people with diabetes, patient-centered care was defined as an essential factor to promote optical medical outcomes and psychological well-being [17]. Patient-centered care refers to a holistic approach to deliver care in a respectful and individualized way, allowing negotiation of care and offering choices through a therapeutic relationship where patients are empowered to be actively involved in health decisions [18]. In a classical conceptualization, Funnel et al. defined patient empowerment as a conceptual shift in the relationship between patients and providers, where patients are no longer consumers of services but active partners in the provision of their diabetes care [19]. From this point of view, empowered patients are those having the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and self-awareness necessary to influence their own behavior in order to improve the quality of their lives [19]. However, multiple different definitions of patient empowerment are available in the literature [20,21,22], and its boundaries with other theoretically-related constructs, such as self-efficacy, enablement, or patient activation, still present many ambiguities [23]. This makes it difficult to reach a consensus about the conceptualization and measurement of patient empowerment, but it has been suggested to be a wide-ranging and multidimensional concept [24], which could be potentially measurable using those related indicators [25].
In cross-sectional analyses, higher levels of patient empowerment have been related to lower symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with T2DM [26,27,28]. Additionally, there is some evidence suggesting that interventions aimed to promote empowerment and patient activation can alleviate affective symptoms in different settings such as hemodialysis [29] or chronic diseases, including cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes [30].
There is an increasing call for a move toward a more patient-centered care in the field of diabetes [16]. Furthermore, for optimal disease management, it is crucial that T2DM healthcare management includes strategies for the early detection and treatment of affective symptoms. Since patient empowerment is an important contributor to patient-centeredness [31], it could be considered when designing interventions from a comprehensive approach while integrating mental health management into overall diabetes care. However, a better understanding of the complex relationship between patient empowerment and affective symptoms is needed first.
In this sense, for the current analysis, we used data from the INDICA study, a multi-arm randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different multicomponent interventions based on the conceptual framework of behavioral change and patient-centered care [32]. This study, carried out with a large sample of TSDM patients during two years, showed significant improvements in HbA1c levels (especially in those with worse control at baseline), diastolic and systolic pressure [32], adherence to the Mediterranean diet, smoking cessation, as well as in empowerment and other psychological outcomes [33]. Here, we analyzed whether patient empowerment significantly predicts anxiety and depression after 12 and 24 months among patients with T2DM and whether change in patient empowerment relates to change in affective symptoms. We hypothesized that baseline patient empowerment would predict anxiety and depression symptoms after 12 and 24 months and that increased patient empowerment would be significantly associated with improvement in both anxious and depressive symptoms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The INDICA study was a multi-arm cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in the Canary Islands, Spain (ClinicalTrials identifier NCT01657227). A detailed study description and its main results are described elsewhere [32,33,34]. The scientific and ethics committee of the University Hospital Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria (ID: EPA-07/10) approved the study protocol. The study was performed in accordance with good clinical practice standards, applicable local regulatory requirements, and the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Setting and Recruitment

The unit of recruitment in the INDICA study was the family care unit (FCU), comprising a family physician and a nurse from primary healthcare centers (PHC) in Tenerife, Gran Canaria, Lanzarote, and La Palma. First, PHC (clusters) with at least eight FCU were recruited. Then, FCUs were randomly selected from all those consenting to participate in each PHC. After that, all potential eligible patients in each selected FCU were identified through electronic clinical records and invited to participate. Finally, patients were randomly selected from all those fulfilling the inclusion criteria and providing informed consent.

2.3. Participants

The INDICA study included adult patients with T2DM, without severe comorbidities, and who were diagnosed at least one year before enrolment. All participants provided written informed consent before enrollment. The full inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 1.

2.4. Interventions

In the INDICA study, participants were randomly allocated by clusters to usual care or to one of three multicomponent interventions of knowledge transfer and behavior modification: one aimed directly at patients (PTI), one aimed at primary care healthcare professionals (PFI), and one offering both interventions simultaneously (CBI). The intervention aimed at patients included: (1) a set of eight group sessions, during the 2 years of intervention, aimed to empower patients in self-control and monitoring; (2) monitoring of physical activity, diet, drug adherence, mood, blood pressure, and blood glucose; and (3) continuous, personalized feedback by semi-automated mobile phone messages. The intervention for healthcare professionals included: (1) an educational and interactive group program of two sessions, three months apart, with updated clinical management information and training on how to provide patient-centered care; (2) an automated decision aid tool based on a clinical practice guide for T2DM; and (3) monthly computerized graphic feedback on outcome indicators for all patients with T2DM.

2.5. Measures

All measures were administered at the baseline (pre-intervention) and after 12 and 24 months of intervention.

2.5.1. Patient Empowerment

The Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF) [35] was used to assess empowerment levels. It is an eight-item short form of the original Diabetes Empowerment Scale (DES) [36], specifically designed to allow for a brief overall assessment of diabetes-related psychosocial self-efficacy, including three aspects: (1) the management of the psychological aspects of diabetes; (2) the assessment of dissatisfaction and readiness to change; and (3) setting and achieving diabetes goals. The eight items of the DES-SF are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The total score ranges from 8 to 40, and higher scores indicate stronger levels of patient empowerment. The DES-SF has shown good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.83) and stability over time (r = 0.532; p = 0.009) [37]. The DES-SF has been translated and adapted for Spanish-speaking older adults with chronic diseases by replacing the word “diabetes” with “health” to cover all kinds of health conditions [38]. This adaptation has shown good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89) and convergent validity with the General Self Efficacy Scale (r = 0.77) [38].

2.5.2. Depression

Depression level was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) [39], a 21-item self-reported instrument designed to measure and quantify the severity of depressive symptoms. The questionnaire consists of 21 items, each rated on a 4-point Likert scale (from 0 to 3). The minimum and maximum scores are 0 and 63, where the higher scores indicate greater severity of depressive symptoms. More specifically, a score of 0–13 indicates minimal or no depression; 14–19 mild depression; 20–28 moderate depression; and a score of 29–63 indicates severe depression. The BDI-II is a reliable and well-validated measure. Studies on its psychometric properties have reported an average Cronbach’s alpha around 0.9 and good-to-excellent retest reliability coefficients (range 0.73 to 0.96) [40]. The Spanish adaptation [41] has also shown good internal consistency in general [42], medical [43], and psychiatric samples [41] (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, 0.92, and 0.89 respectively).

2.5.3. Anxiety

The Spanish adaptation [44] of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) [45] was used to determine anxiety levels of T2DM patients. It is a psychological self-reported 40-item inventory. The first 20 items measure the state of anxiety (STAI-S), and the second 20 items assess trait anxiety (STAI-T). In the Spanish version, each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all/almost never) to 3 (very much so/almost always). The total score for each subscale is obtained from the sum of the individual items, considering the inversion of the negative ones. Therefore, the total score oscillates between 0 and 60, with higher scores reflecting greater anxiety. Both subscales have shown good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.90 and 0.94 for trait and state subscales, respectively) [46]. Here, we used only the state subscale, which measures a transient emotional state characterized by perceived subjective feelings of tension and apprehension.

2.5.4. Control Variables

To control potential confounding, all multivariate analyses were adjusted for age and time since diagnosis.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using STATA 15.0 software. The main characteristics of the sample and the study variables were described using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation for continuous variables.
First, the hypotheses of a linear association between baseline empowerment scores and anxiety and depression after 12 and 24 months, respectively, were assessed through multilevel mixed models. We conducted separate models for each dependent variable, state-anxiety (STAI-S) and depression (BDI-II), each one separately for 12 and 24 months. The first level included patients’ variables (baseline value of the dependent variable, intervention group, age, time since diagnosis, and the interaction between the intervention group and the baseline empowerment scores) and the second level corresponded to the PHC in which patients are grouped.
Next, the hypotheses of linear association between increased patient empowerment and the reduction of anxiety and depression symptoms over time were also assessed through multilevel mixed models. Separate multilevel mixed models were conducted for each dependent variable: change in state-anxiety (STAI-S) and change in depressive symptoms (BDI-II). First level variables are those corresponding to change in anxious and depressive symptoms between the baseline and the 12- and 24-months follow-ups (repeated time measures). The second level includes patients’ variables (intervention group, age, and time since diagnosis) and two interaction terms: (1) between period of time (time between baseline and 12 and 24-months) and change in patient empowerment, and (2) between intervention group and change in patient empowerment. The third level variable was the PHC in which patients were grouped.
Multilevel mixed models were performed to correct for our clustered data. The effect that identified the intervention arm was considered fixed for the different PHC, while the intercept was considered random. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was obtained for each model for the PHC and by patient according to their PHC. All the analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Missing values were treated by means of multiple imputation procedures [47] with results based on 100 imputed datasets (missing values from the follow-up visits were imputed). More details on the imputation process can be found in previous publications [33,34]. A threshold of 0.05 was used to define the statistical significance of the tests.

3. Results

3.1. Study Participants

A total of 2334 patients with uncomplicated T2DM, from 32 PHC, participated in this study. The mean age was 55.70 ± 7.1 years, and 51.9% were females. Concerning education level, 62.5% had primary or lower education, while 37.5% had secondary or higher education. Mean time since diagnosis was 8.50 ± 6.51 years, and 75.3% of the participants had HbA1c levels within the accepted therapeutic goal (<8%). At baseline, patients were not highly anxious or depressed. Table 2 describes the sociodemographic and clinical data of the study sample at the baseline.
The flowchart with the cluster randomization of patients for each intervention, the attendance rate at educational/training sessions of patients and professionals, and the number of questionnaires received for each follow-up assessment is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Patient Empowerment as a Predictor of Anxiety

Contrary to our hypotheses, baseline patient empowerment did not significantly predict anxiety scores, neither after 12 (p = 0.219) nor 24 months (p = 0.115) (Table 3). The interaction between the intervention group and empowerment was not significant; that is, the association between baseline empowerment and anxiety at the follow up did not significantly differ between experimental groups (the interaction term was excluded from the models shown in Table 3).
Baseline anxiety significantly predicted anxiety scores at 12 and 24 months (Table 3). At 12 months, this association was significantly weaker in the mixed intervention group (B = 0.17, p = 0.001) compared to the usual care group (B = 0.41, p < 0.001) (p = 0.005 for the between-group difference). At 24 months, this association was not significantly different between the four study groups (data not shown).

3.3. Patient Empowerment as a Predictor of Depressive Symptoms

Contrary to what was expected, baseline patient empowerment did not significantly predict depression scores after 12 (p = 0.226) or 24 months (p = 0.108) (Table 4). The interaction between the intervention group and empowerment was not significant, and it was excluded from the models shown in Table 4.
Baseline depression significantly predicted depression scores at 12 and 24 months (Table 4). At 12 months, this association was significantly weaker in the professional (B = 0.30, p < 0.001) and mixed (B = 0.24, p < 0.001) intervention groups compared to the usual care group (B = 0.57, p < 0.001) (p < 0.001 for the between-group differences). At 24 months, this association was not significantly different between the four study groups (data not shown).

3.4. Change in Patient Empowerment and its Association with Change in Anxiety Symptoms

The multilevel regression model (Table 5) showed that a higher increase in patient empowerment was significantly associated with greater anxiety reduction (B = −0.23; p < 0.001), and this effect was not significantly different between the two follow-ups (interaction time × DES-SF non-significant, p = 0.646). The interaction term between the intervention group and the change in patient empowerment was not significant, so it was excluded from the model. The ICC was small at the PHC level but broad at the patient level, accounting for considerable variations among patients

3.5. Change in Patient Empowerment and its Association with Change in Depressive Symptoms

Just as for anxiety symptoms, the multilevel regression model (Table 6) showed that a higher increase in patient empowerment was significantly associated with greater depression reduction (B = −0.12, p < 0.001), without a significant interaction time × DES-SF (p = 0.381). The interaction term between the intervention group and change in patient empowerment was not significant and was excluded from the model.

4. Discussion

The mechanism underlying how patient empowerment is linked to affective outcomes in T2DM patients has not been clearly elucidated. Contrary to what was expected, the findings of this secondary analysis of the INDICA study suggest that patient empowerment does not predict anxiety and depression scores after 12 or 24 months. However, the results do support our a priori hypothesis that increased patient empowerment would be associated with improvements in both anxiety and depression symptoms.
The results of this study extend previous findings that empowering patients to become more actively involved in their care could lead to better mental wellbeing. In a large prospective cohort study with moderate-to-severe depression, higher baseline patient activation was found to be predictive of more reduction in depressive symptoms and a larger percentage of remission and response to treatment over one year [48]. Previous evidence in the field of diabetes has also contributed to shed light on this association. In this respect, different studies have found that increased self-efficacy or patient activation were significantly related to improvements in depressive mood [49,50,51]. Similarly, intervention programs that include empowerment as a primary goal may improve psychological outcomes as well as enhance quality of life [52,53]. Hernández-Jiménez et al. assessed the effectiveness of a comprehensive care program based on empowerment techniques to achieve metabolic goals and improve other diabetes-related complications, such as anxiety and depression symptoms [52]. After the three-month intervention phase, the percentage of T2DM patients suffering from anxiety and depression significantly decreased, and the scores remained low at the annual follow-ups [52]. Likewise, Cheng et al. tested the application of a collaborative empowerment-based self-management intervention specifically aimed towards patients with poorly controlled T2DM [53]. As they concluded, both emotional and regimen-related distress were responsive to the intervention and were considerably reduced at three months post-intervention [53]. Similar results have also been found with our INDICA interventions, which included empowerment techniques based on the conceptual framework of patient-centered care [34]. After 12 months, and compared to usual care, the intervention aimed at professionals (PFI) and the one targeting patients and professionals jointly (CBI), showed statistically significant effects on patient empowerment scores and also on the reduction of anxious and depressive symptoms [32]. These effects were not observed with the intervention targeting exclusively patients (PTI) and could be interpreted as the result of providing better patient-centered care, which also underlines the importance of training healthcare professionals on how to move toward patient-centeredness and promote patient empowerment.
These findings are consistent with Bandura’s postulates. According to his Social Cognitive Theory [54], self-efficacy, one of the main indicators of patient empowerment, plays an essential role in the self-regulation of affective states [55,56]. Since they manifest more doubts about their capabilities, patients with low self-efficacy may believe they are inefficient at dealing with the daily demands of diabetes, which in turn results in more stress, anxiety or depression. As Bandura himself noted, “the inability to influence events and social conditions that significantly affect one’s life can give rise to feelings of futility and despondency as well as anxiety” (p. 153) [55].
In light of our results and previous evidence, it can be assumed that empowering patients through enhancing patient activation and promoting self-efficacy can have a substantial impact on T2DM patients’ mental health. Moreover, this positive effect on psychological outcomes could also contribute to better glycemic outcomes and minimize diabetes-related complications. It is widely known that optimum adherence to self-care strategies is fundamental to effectively managing diabetes. Diabetes-related emotional distress in patients with T2DM is associated with poorer treatment adherence and glycemic control, and these relationships have been found to be partially mediated through perceived control [57]. Baseline data drawn from a randomized controlled trial showed that diabetes-related distress, diabetes empowerment, and depression are statistically significant predictors of mastery, while highlighting that diabetes empowerment is positively associated with diabetes management [58]. To date, many studies have focused on the association between affective symptoms and self-care behaviors in diabetic patients [10,59,60,61,62,63]. In this respect, affective symptoms have been linked to medication non-adherence [60,63] and lower adherence to diet [10,62] and exercise recommendations [10]. The reason why depressive symptoms are associated with increased odds of suboptimal diabetes self-care probably lies in the presence of anhedonia, one of its main symptoms. Anhedonia is defined as a lack of enjoyment from, engagement in, or energy for life’s experiences, with deficits in the capacity to feel pleasure or take interest in things [64]. Accordingly, people with T2DM and comorbid depressive symptoms may be less likely to experience satisfaction or pleasure from achieving glycemic control through the maintenance of adequate self-care behaviors [65,66].
The strengths and limitations of the original INDICA study have been reported in detail elsewhere [32,33]. In brief, the trial had a large sample size and a robust cluster randomized design, with reasonably well-matched participants in the control and intervention groups, and the study was successful in minimizing contamination between practices. Importantly, the intervention was designed for consistent reproducibility of training and had a relatively low up-front training investment, enabling implementation across other sites. All educators participating in the intervention were fully trained and quality assured, ensuring generalizability of the findings out of the research setting. Statistical analyses for this study were undertaken using intention-to-treat analysis and robust imputation techniques, minimizing bias in the reported findings. This secondary study had some limitations. The main one is the use of the short form of the DES, which may reduce scores’ variability, obscuring to some extent its associations with the dependent variables. Second, our study focused on patients with uncomplicated T2DM and low levels of anxiety/depression, and therefore our findings are not generalizable to patients who have already developed long-term diabetes complications, which in turn are related to severe forms of anxiety and depression [67]. Additionally, it has been recently shown that diabetes-specific emotional distress probably has a greater impact on glycemic control than depression [27,53]. The construct of diabetes distress is linked to specific health threats produced by the disease, and therefore it is more content-specific and refers to a broader affective experience than clinical depression [68]. It is not a psychopathological condition but an expected reaction to health-related stressors (e.g., starting insulin, acute and long-term complications). There is considerable debate about the independent influence of depression and diabetes distress on disease self-management and glucose control [58,61,62,69].
This study adds empirical evidence about the role of patient empowerment as an important mental health promotion strategy that may be useful to include when designing interventions for T2DM. The results of this secondary analysis of the INDICA study contribute to the knowledge on how to reduce affective symptoms through comprehensive patient-centered interventions and highlight patient empowerment as a significant contributor.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study showed that positive changes in patient empowerment are related to improvements in both anxiety and depression symptoms in patients with T2DM.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19084818/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.-D., A.R.-S., L.P.-P. and W.P.; formal analysis, A.D.-D., H.G.-P., A.R.-S. and Y.R.-F.; funding acquisition, P.S.-A.; methodology, A.D.-D., H.G.-P., A.R.-S., Y.R.-F. and L.P.-P.; project administration, Y.R.-F., L.P.-P. and P.S.-A.; supervision, L.P.-P., W.P. and P.S.-A.; writing-original draft, A.D.-D.; writing-review and editing, H.G.-P., A.R.-S., Y.R.-F., L.P.-P., Y.Á.-P., W.P., C.C. and P.S.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The INDICA study received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness (Instituto de Salud Carlos III), grant numbers ADE10/00032 and PI16/00769, cofounded by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional Una manera de hacer Europa.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Nuestra Señora de Candelaria (ID: EPA-07/10).

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 within the article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Miguel Angel García-Bello, who provided statistical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Punthakee, Z.; Goldenberg, R.; Katz, P. Definition, Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes, Prediabetes and Metabolic Syndrome. Can. J. Diabetes 2018, 42, S10–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Sun, H.; Saeedi, P.; Karuranga, S.; Pinkepank, M.; Ogurtsova, K.; Duncan, B.B.; Stein, C.; Basit, A.; Chan, J.C.N.; Mbanya, J.C.; et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 183, 109119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zheng, Y.; Ley, S.H.; Hu, F.B. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2017, 14, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rojo-Martínez, G.; Valdés, S.; Soriguer, F.; Vendrell, J.; Urrutia, I.; Pérez, V.; Ortega, E.; Ocón, P.; Montanya, E.; Menéndez, E.; et al. Incidence of diabetes mellitus in Spain as results of the nation-wide cohort [email protected] study. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Menéndez Torre, E.L.; Ares Blanco, J.; Conde Barreiro, S.; Rojo Martínez, G.; Delgado Alvarez, E. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus in Spain in 2016 according to the Primary Care Clinical Database (BDCAP). Endocrinol. Diabetes Nutr. 2021, 68, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khaledi, M.; Haghighatdoost, F.; Feizi, A.; Aminorroaya, A. The prevalence of comorbid depression in patients with type 2 diabetes: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on huge number of observational studies. Acta Diabetol. 2019, 56, 631–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Salinero-Fort, M.A.; Gomez-Campelo, P.; Andres-Rebollo, F.J.S.; Cardenas-Valladolid, J.; Abanades-Herranz, J.C.; De Santa Pau, E.C.; Chico-Moraleja, R.M.; Beamud-Victoria, D.; De Miguel-Yanes, J.M.; Jimenez-Garcia, R.; et al. Prevalence of depression in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain (the DIADEMA Study): Results from the MADIABETES cohort. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e020768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chaturvedi, S.K.; Manche Gowda, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Alosaimi, F.D.; Andreone, N.; Bobrov, A.; Bulgari, V.; Carrà, G.; Castelnuovo, G.; De Girolamo, G.; et al. More anxious than depressed: Prevalence and correlates in a 15-nation study of anxiety disorders in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Gen. Psychiatry 2019, 32, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hoogendoorn, C.J.; Shapira, A.; Roy, J.F.; Walker, E.A.; Cohen, H.W.; Gonzalez, J.S. Depressive symptom dimensions and medication non-adherence in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2019, 33, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nefs, G.; Hendrieckx, C.; Reddy, P.; Browne, J.L.; Bot, M.; Dixon, J.; Kyrios, M.; Speight, J.; Pouwer, F. Comorbid elevated symptoms of anxiety and depression in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: Results from the International Diabetes MILES Study. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2019, 33, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brown, S.A.; García, A.A.; Brown, A.; Becker, B.J.; Conn, V.S.; Ramírez, G.; Winter, M.A.; Sumlin, L.L.; Garcia, T.J.; Cuevas, H.E. Biobehavioral determinants of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ. Couns. 2016, 99, 1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Obo, H.; Kugbey, N.; Atefoe, E. Social support, depression, anxiety, and quality of life among persons living with type 2 diabetes: A path analysis. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 2021, 51, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ducat, L.; Philipson, L.H.; Anderson, B.J. The Mental Health Comorbidities of Diabetes. JAMA 2014, 312, 691–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. De Guerrero Fernández Alba, I.; Gimeno-Miguel, A.; Poblador-Plou, B.; Gimeno-Feliu, L.A.; Ioakeim-Skoufa, I.; Rojo-Martínez, G.; Forjaz, M.J.; Prados-Torres, A. Association between mental health comorbidity and health outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. American Diabetes Association. 4. Lifestyle Management. Diabetes Care 2017, 40, S33–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Inzucchi, S.E.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Buse, J.B.; Diamant, M.; Ferrannini, E.; Nauck, M.; Peters, A.L.; Tsapas, A.; Wender, R.; Matthews, D.R. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: A patient-centered approach: Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2012, 35, 1364–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Young-Hyman, D.; De Groot, M.; Hill-Briggs, F.; Gonzalez, J.S.; Hood, K.; Peyrot, M. Psychosocial Care for People with Diabetes: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2016, 39, 2126–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Morgan, S.; Yoder, L.H. A concept analysis of person-centered care. J. Holist. Nurs. 2012, 30, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Funnell, M.M.; Anderson, R.M.; Arnold, M.S.; Barr, P.A.; Donnelly, M.; Johnson, P.D.; Taylor-Moon, D.; White, N.H. Empowerment: An idea whose time has come in diabetes education. Diabetes Educ. 1991, 17, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Castro, E.M.; Van Regenmortel, T.; Vanhaecht, K.; Sermeus, W.; Van Hecke, A. Patient empowerment, patient participation and patient-centeredness in hospital care: A concept analysis based on a literature review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2016, 99, 1923–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cerezo, P.G.; Juvé-Udina, M.E.; Delgado-Hito, P. Concepts and measures of patient empowerment: A comprehensive review. Rev. Esc. Enferm. USP 2016, 50, 0667–0674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Barr, P.J.; Scholl, I.; Bravo, P.; Faber, M.J.; Elwyn, G.; McAllister, M. Assessment of Patient Empowerment—A Systematic Review of Measures. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fumagalli, L.P.; Radaelli, G.; Lettieri, E.; Bertele, P.; Masella, C. Patient Empowerment and its neighbours: Clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships. Health Policy 2015, 119, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pekonen, A.; Eloranta, S.; Stolt, M.; Virolainen, P.; Leino-Kilpi, H. Measuring patient empowerment—A systematic review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2020, 103, 777–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bravo, P.; Edwards, A.; Barr, P.J.; Scholl, I.; Elwyn, G.; McAllister, M. Conceptualising patient empowerment: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2015, 15, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Sympa, P.; Vlachou, E.; Kazakos, K.; Govina, O.; Stamatiou, G.; Lavdaniti, M. Depression and Self-Efficacy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Northern Greece. Endocr. Metab. Immune Disord. Drug Targets 2018, 18, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lin, K.; Park, C.; Li, M.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Li, W.; Quinn, L. Effects of depression, diabetes distress, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes self-management on glycemic control among Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2017, 131, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lin, Y.H.; Chen, D.A.; Lin, C.; Huang, H. Type D Personality Is Associated with Glycemic Control and Socio-Psychological Factors on Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2020, 13, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ji, Y.N.; Liu, Y.H.; Xie, L.L.; Li, C.Y.; Hou, Z.H. The effect of empowerment education on depression level and laboratory indicators of patients treated with hemodialysis: A meta-analysis. Front. Nurs. 2019, 6, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lin, M.Y.; Weng, W.S.; Apriliyasari, R.W.; Van Truong, P.; Tsai, P.S. Effects of Patient Activation Intervention on Chronic Diseases: A Meta-Analysis. J. Nurs. Res. 2020, 28, e116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zill, J.M.; Scholl, I.; Härter, M.; Dirmaier, J. Which Dimensions of Patient-Centeredness Matter?—Results of a Web-Based Expert Delphi Survey. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ramallo-Fariña, Y.; Rivero-Santana, A.; García-Pérez, L.; García-Bello, M.A.; Wägner, A.M.; Gonzalez-Pacheco, H.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, L.; Kaiser-Girardot, S.; Monzón-Monzón, G.; Guerra-Marrero, C.; et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for knowledge transfer and behaviour modification interventions in type 2 diabetes-the INDICA study: A multiarm cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e050804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ramallo-Fariña, Y.; García-Pérez, L.; Castilla-Rodríguez, I.; Perestelo-Pérez, L.; Wägner, A.M.; de Pablos-Velasco, P.; Domínguez, A.C.; Cortés, M.B.; Vallejo-Torres, L.; Ramírez, M.E.; et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knowledge transfer and behavior modification interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients-the INDICA study: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Implement. Sci. 2015, 10, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Ramallo-Fariña, Y.; García-Bello, M.A.; García-Pérez, L.; Boronat, M.; Wägner, A.M.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, L.; De Pablos-Velasco, P.; De Segura, I.L.G.; González-Pacheco, H.; Rodríguez, M.C.; et al. Effectiveness of Internet-Based Multicomponent Interventions for Patients and Health Care Professionals to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Evaluated Through the INDICA Study: Multiarm Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020, 8, e18922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Anderson, R.M.; Fitzgerald, J.T.; Gruppen, L.D.; Funnell, M.M.; Oh, M.S. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF). Diabetes Care 2003, 26, 1641–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Anderson, R.M.; Funnell, M.M.; Fitzgerald, J.T.; Marrero, D.G. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: A measure of psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care 2000, 23, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Sousa, M.R.; Almeida, M.; Loureiro, H.; Martins, T. Study of the Psychometric Properties of the Diabetes Empowerment Scale Short Form (DES-SF). Port. J. Public Health 2019, 37, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Serrani Azcurra, D.J.L. Elders Health Empowerment Scale. Spanish adaptation and psychometric analysis. Colomb. Med. 2014, 45, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Beck, A.T.; Steer, R.A.; Brown, G.K. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II; Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Y.P.; Gorenstein, C. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: A comprehensive review. Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 2013, 35, 416–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sanz, J. Adaptación española del Inventario para la Depresión de Beck-II (BDI-II): 3. Propiedades psicométricas en pacientes con trastornos psicológicos Spanish adaptation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): 3. Psychom. Features Patiens Psychol. Disord. Artículos 2005, 16, 121–142. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sanz, J.; Luis, A.; Carmelo, P.; Resumen, V. Adaptación española del Inventario para la Depresión de Beck-II (BDI-II): 2. Propiedades psicométricas en población general The spanish adaptation of Beck’s Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): 2. Psychom. Prop. Gen. Popul. 2003, 14, 249–280. [Google Scholar]
  43. Penley, J.A.; Wiebe, J.S.; Nwosu, A. Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Beck Depression Inventory-II in a Medical Sample. Psychol. Assess. 2003, 15, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Spielberger, C.D.; Gorsuch, R.L.; Lushene, R.E. STAI: Cuestionario de Ansiedad Estado-Rasgo; TEA Ediciones Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  45. Spielberger, C.; Gorsuch, R.; Lushene, R. Cuestionario de ansiedad Estado-Rasgo STAI. IEEE Trans. Commun. 1975, 23, 714–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guillén-Riquelme, A.; Buela-Casal, G. Actualización psicométrica y funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems en el State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psicothema 2011, 23, 510–515. [Google Scholar]
  47. White, I.R.; Royston, P.; Wood, A.M. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat. Med. 2011, 30, 377–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sacks, R.M.; Greene, J.; Hibbard, J.H.; Overton, V. How well do patient activation scores predict depression outcomes one year later? J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 169, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Imai, H.; Furukawa, T.A.; Hayashi, S.U.; Goto, A.; Izumi, K.; Hayashino, Y.; Noda, M. Risk perception, self-efficacy, trust for physician, depression, and behavior modification in diabetic patients. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 350–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ludman, E.J.; Peterson, D.; Katon, W.J.; Lin, E.H.B.; Von Korff, M.; Ciechanowski, P.; Young, B.; Gensichen, J. Improving Confidence for Self Care in Patients with Depression and Chronic Illnesses. Behav. Med. 2013, 39, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Regeer, H.; van Empelen, P.; Bilo, H.J.G.; de Koning, E.J.P.; Huisman, S.D. Change is possible: How increased patient activation is associated with favorable changes in well-being, self-management and health outcomes among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective longitudinal study. Patient Educ. Couns. 2021, in press. [CrossRef]
  52. Hernández-Jiménez, S.; García-Ulloa, A.C.; Bello-Chavolla, O.Y.; Aguilar-Salinas, C.A.; Kershenobich-Stalnikowitz, D. Long-term effectiveness of a type 2 diabetes comprehensive care program. The CAIPaDi model. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2019, 151, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Cheng, L.; Sit, J.W.H.; Choi, K.; Chair, S.; Li, X.; Wu, Y.; Long, J.; Yang, H. The effects of an empowerment-based self-management intervention on empowerment level, psychological distress, and quality of life in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2019, 116, 103407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall Series in Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986; ISBN 0-13-815614-X. (Hardcover). [Google Scholar]
  55. Bandura, A.; Freeman, W.H.; Lightsey, R. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. J. Cogn. Psychother. 1999, 13, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Muris, P. Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2002, 32, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gonzalez, J.S.; Shreck, E.; Psaros, C.; Safren, S.A. Distress and type 2 diabetes-treatment adherence: A mediating role for perceived control. Health Psychol. 2015, 34, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. McGuigan, K.; Hill, A.; Coates, V.; O’Kane, M.; Thompson, D.R.; Ski, C.F.; McCay, D. Moderating the relationship between diabetes distress and mastery: The role of depression and empowerment. Psychol. Health Med. 2021, 27, 838–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Shrestha, M.; Ng, A.; Paudel, R.; Gray, R. Association between subthreshold depression and self-care behaviours in adults with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2021, 30, 2462–2468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dirmaier, J.; Watzke, B.; Koch, U.; Schulz, H.; Lehnert, H.; Pieper, L.; Wittchen, H.U. Diabetes in primary care: Prospective associations between depression, nonadherence and glycemic control. Psychother. Psychosom. 2010, 79, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Schmitt, A.; Bendig, E.; Baumeister, H.; Hermanns, N.; Kulzer, B. Associations of depression and diabetes distress with self-management behavior and glycemic control. Health Psychol. 2020, 40, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gonzalez, J.S.; Safren, S.A.; Delahanty, L.M.; Cagliero, E.; Wexler, D.J.; Meigs, J.B.; Grant, R.W. Symptoms of depression prospectively predict poorer self-care in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 2008, 25, 1102–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Hogervorst, S.; Adriaanse, M.C.; Hugtenburg, J.G.; Bot, M.; Speight, J.; Pouwer, F.; Nefs, G. Medication Intake, Perceived Barriers, and Their Correlates Among Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Results From Diabetes MILES—The Netherlands. Front. Clin. Diabetes Healthc. 2021, 2, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Association: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 0-89042-555-8. [Google Scholar]
  65. Nefs, G.; Pouwer, F.; Denollet, J.; Kramer, H.; van Gent Wijnands, C.J.M.; Pop, V.J.M. Suboptimal glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A key role for anhedonia? J. Psychiatr. Res. 2012, 46, 549–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Nefs, G.; Pop, V.J.M.; Denollet, J.; Pouwer, F. Depressive symptoms and all-cause mortality in people with type 2 diabetes: A focus on potential mechanisms. Br. J. Psychiatry 2016, 209, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Rajput, R.; Gehlawat, P.; Gehlan, D.; Gupta, R.; Rajput, M. Prevalence and predictors of depression and anxiety in patients of diabetes mellitus in a tertiary care center. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2016, 20, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Fisher, L.; Gonzalez, J.S.; Polonsky, W.H. The confusing tale of depression and distress in patients with diabetes: A call for greater clarity and precision. Diabet. Med. 2014, 31, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Fisher, L.; Skaff, M.M.; Mullan, J.T.; Arean, P.; Mohr, D.; Masharani, U.; Glasgow, R.; Laurencin, G. Clinical depression versus distress among patients with type 2 diabetes: Not just a question of semantics. Diabetes Care 2007, 30, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijerph 19 04818 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the progress of participants throughout the trial. BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory-II; DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; ITT: intention-to-treat; STAI-S: State subscale of the Trait Anxiety Inventory; PHC: Primary Healthcare Center; UC: usual care.
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the progress of participants throughout the trial. BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory-II; DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; ITT: intention-to-treat; STAI-S: State subscale of the Trait Anxiety Inventory; PHC: Primary Healthcare Center; UC: usual care.
Ijerph 19 04818 g001
Table
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
  • Patients with T2DM diagnosed at least one year prior to study enrolment.
  • 18–65 years of age.
  • Formal consent to participate in the study.
  • Regular use of mobile phone.
  • Chronic kidney disease ≥ stage 3b, as defined by the National Kidney Foundation’s Kidney Disease Outcomes and Quality Improvement Initiative urinary albumin to creatinine ratio ≥300 mg/g, and/or urinary protein excretion ≥300 mg/24 h.
  • Acute coronary syndrome (documented angina or myocardial infarction) or stroke in the last 6 months or class III or IV heart failure, according to the New York Heart Association.
  • Proliferative diabetic retinopathy or clinically significant diabetic macular edema requiring previous treatment with retinal photocoagulation, vitrectomy, or intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor or triamcinolone acetonide 6 months prior to study inclusion.
  • Uncorrected severe hearing or visual impairment or corrected visual acuity ≤20/40 by any cause.
  • Diabetic foot with ulcers ≥2 according to the Wagner scale.
  • Liver cirrhosis.
  • Cancer unless disease free 5 years after diagnosis.
  • Other terminal illnesses.
  • Intellectual disability, dementia, or psychotic diseases.
  • Active substance abuse.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Insufficient Spanish language skills.
  • Physical disability limiting participation in group education activities.
  • Concurrent participation in another clinical trial or any other investigational study.
T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Table
Table 2. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
Table 2. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
Characteristicsn (%) or Mean (SD)
Age (years), mean (SD)55.70 (7.1)
Gender, n (%)
Male
Female
1.122 (48.1)
1.212 (51.9)
Education level, n (%)
Primary or lower
Secondary or higher
1.458 (62.5)
876 (37.5)
Living alone, n (%)
Yes
No
209 (8)
2.125 (91)
Marital status, n (%)
With partner
Without partner
1.821 (78)
513 (23)
Employment status, n (%)
Active
Non-active
1.367 (58.6)
967 (41.4)
Monthly income, n (%)
<€500
≥€500
1.742 (74.6)
592 (25.4)
Years since diagnosis, mean (SD)8.50 (6.51)
HbA1c, n (%)
<8%
≥8%
1.758 (75.3)
576 (24.7)
HbA1c, mean (SD)7.28 (1.47)
BMI, n (%)
Normal-underweight (<25)
Overweight (<30)
Class I obesity (<35)
Class II obesity (<40)
Class III obesity (≥40)
199 (8.6)
726 (31.1)
794 (34)
402 (17.2)
213 (9.1)
BMI, mean (SD)32.07 (5.91)
Number of comorbidities, mean (SD)2.75 (1.85)
WHI, mean (SD)0.98 (0.07)
Creatine, mean (SD)0.80 (0.18)
Triglycerides, mean (SD)162.53 (104.35)
Patient empowerment (DES-SF), mean (SD)26.58 (9.17)
Depression (BDI-II), mean (SD)11.26 (9.90)
Anxiety (STAI-S), mean (SD)21.77 (13.49)
BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory-II; BMI: body mass index; DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; SD: standard deviation; STAI-S: State subscale of the Trait Anxiety Inventory; WHI: Waist Hip Index.
Table
Table 3. Regression model for state-anxiety (STAI-S) after 12 and 24 months.
Table 3. Regression model for state-anxiety (STAI-S) after 12 and 24 months.
n = 233412 Months24 Months
Coefficient (CI95%)t-Studentp-ValueCoefficient (CI95%)t-Studentp-Value
Intervention (ref: usual care)
Patients−2.34 (−6.14; 1.45)−1.210.226−2.00 (−6.04; 2.04)−0.970.331
Professionals−3.49 (−7.28; 0.31)−1.800.072−0.33 (−4.38; 3.72)−0.160.873
Mixed−5.26 (−9.15; −1.36)−2.650.008−0.50 (−4.55; 3.56)−0.240.811
STAI-S (baseline)0.32 (0.27; 0.37)13.060.0000.22 (0.18; 0.27)9.620.000
DES-SF (baseline)−0.04 (−0.10; 0.02)−1.230.219−0.05 (−0.11; 0.01)−1.580.115
Time since diagnosis0.79 (−0.02; 0.17)1.630.1040.04 (−0.05; 0.12)0.920.359
Age−0.04 (−0.14; 0.05)−0.940.349−0.05 (−0.13; 0.04)−1.110.266
Constant14.72 (11.28; 18.16)8.390.00013.07 (9.59; 16.56)7.350.000
F = 34.29; p < 0.000; ICC PHC = 0.09F = 18.80; p < 0.000; ICC PHC = 0.11
DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; ICC: intra-class correlation; PHC: Primary Healthcare Center; ref: reference; STAI-S: State subscale of the Trait Anxiety Inventory.
Table
Table 4. Regression model for depressive symptoms (BDI-II) after 12 and 24 months.
Table 4. Regression model for depressive symptoms (BDI-II) after 12 and 24 months.
n = 233412 Months24 Months
Coefficient (CI95%)t-Studentp-ValueCoefficient (CI95%)t-Studentp-Value
Intervention (ref: usual care)
Patients−1.98 (−4.02; 0.07)−1.890.059−0.68 (−3.02; 1.65)−0.580.565
Professionals−3.08 (−5.05; −1.11)−3.070.0020.45 (−1.88; 2.78)0.380.705
Mixed−2.94 (−5.04; −0.83)−2.730.0060.23 (−2.13; 2.59)0.190.846
BDI-II (baseline)0.40 (0.34; 0.46)13.480.0000.24 (0.20; 0.28)12.350.000
DES-SF (baseline)−0.03 (−0.8; 0.18)−1.210.226−0.03 (−0.08; 0.01)−1.610.108
Time since diagnosis0.02 (−0.04; 0.09)0.680.4950.02 (−0.03; 0.08)0.820.412
Age−0.00 (−0.07; 0.06)−0.040.971−0.01 (−0.06; 0.05)−0.250.802
Constant6.77 (4.77; 8.78)6.630.0005.00 (2.96, 7.02)4.810.000
F = 51.65; p < 0.000; ICC PHC = 0.04F = 27.58; p < 0.000; ICC PHC = 0.09
BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory-II; DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; ICC: intra-class correlation; PHC: Primary Healthcare Center; ref: reference.
Table
Table 5. Regression model for change in state-anxiety (STAI-S).
Table 5. Regression model for change in state-anxiety (STAI-S).
n = 2334Coefficient (CI95%)t-Studentp-Value
Intervention (ref: usual care)
Patients−1.39 (−4.98; 2.20)−0.760.449
Professionals−0.23 (−4.24; 3.79)−0.110.912
Mixed−3.19 (−6.98; 0.60)−1.650.099
Time (change 24 month-baseline) (ref: change 12 months-baseline)−1.64 (−2.53; −0.75)−3.62<0.001
DES-SF (change 24 month-baseline) (ref: change 12 months-baseline)−0.23 (−0.30; −0.16)−6.28<0.001
Time × DES-SF (change 24 month-baseline) (ref: change 12 months-baseline)0.02 (−0.06; 0.10)0.460.646
Time since diagnosis0.08 (−0.03; 0.19)1.350.176
Age0.07 (−0.03; 0.18)1.40.163
Constant−1.75 (−4.39; 0.90)−1.30.195
F = 12.81; p < 0.001; ICC PHC = 0.04; ICC subject | PHC = 0.60
DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; ICC: intra-class correlation; PHC: Primary Healthcare Center; ref: reference.
Table
Table 6. Regression model for the change in depressive symptoms (BDI-II).
Table 6. Regression model for the change in depressive symptoms (BDI-II).
n = 2334Coefficient (CI95%)t-Studentp-Value
Intervention (ref: usual care)
Patients−0.80 (−2.85; 1.26)−0.760.446
Professionals−0.75 (−3.0; 1.49)−0.660.509
Mixed−1.21 (−3.39; 0.97)−1.090.277
Time (change 24 month-baseline) (ref: change 12 months-baseline)−1.52 (−2.08; −0.96)−5.32<0.001
DES-SF (change 24 month-baseline) (ref: change 12 months-baseline)−0.12 (−0.17; −0.07)−4.71<0.001
Time × DES-SF (change 24 month-baseline) (ref: change 12 months-baseline)0.02 (−0.03; 0.07)0.880.381
Time since diagnosis0.01 (−0.06; 0.08)0.220.828
Age0.03 (−0.04; 0.10)0.770.444
Constant−1.61 (−3.10; 0.12)−2.120.034
F = 10.49; p < 0.001; ICC PHC = 0.02; ICC subject | PHC = 0.51
DES-SF: Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form; ICC: intra-class correlation; PHC: Primary Healthcare Center; ref: reference.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duarte-Díaz, A.; González-Pacheco, H.; Rivero-Santana, A.; Ramallo-Fariña, Y.; Perestelo-Pérez, L.; Álvarez-Pérez, Y.; Peñate, W.; Carrion, C.; Serrano-Aguilar, P.; on behalf of the INDICA Team. Increased Patient Empowerment Is Associated with Improvement in Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Findings from the INDICA Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084818

AMA Style

Duarte-Díaz A, González-Pacheco H, Rivero-Santana A, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Perestelo-Pérez L, Álvarez-Pérez Y, Peñate W, Carrion C, Serrano-Aguilar P, on behalf of the INDICA Team. Increased Patient Empowerment Is Associated with Improvement in Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Findings from the INDICA Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(8):4818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084818

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duarte-Díaz, Andrea, Himar González-Pacheco, Amado Rivero-Santana, Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez, Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez, Wenceslao Peñate, Carme Carrion, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar, and on behalf of the INDICA Team. 2022. "Increased Patient Empowerment Is Associated with Improvement in Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Findings from the INDICA Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 8: 4818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084818

APA Style

Duarte-Díaz, A., González-Pacheco, H., Rivero-Santana, A., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Perestelo-Pérez, L., Álvarez-Pérez, Y., Peñate, W., Carrion, C., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & on behalf of the INDICA Team. (2022). Increased Patient Empowerment Is Associated with Improvement in Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Findings from the INDICA Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084818

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop