Objective: To evaluate the impact of diabetes-related distress along with other cardiovascular risk factors on the predicted 10-year cardiovascular complication risks in patients with type 2 diabetes
Methods: This cross-sectional study involved Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine 2.0, surveying a population with lower socioeconomic status and type 2 diabetes. Statistical analyses incorporated multiple linear regression models, comprising of the predicted cardiovascular risks, PAID scores, tobacco use, gender, age, LDL levels, clinically documented depression status, BMI, and systolic blood pressure.
Results: Results are organized by statistical models (driven by risk factors for cardiovascular conditions) and the predicted, individual 10-year cardiovascular complication risks vs. PAID scores.
Conclusion: This study found an association between psychosocial status and cardiovascular disease risk management in lower socioeconomic patients with type 2 diabetes. Within all the multiple linear regression models, the levels of diabetes-related distress have been shown to impact the predicted fatal coronary heart disease risks, thus allowing this distress to predict such cardiovascular risk after including certain risk factors.
| Coefficient | p-value | 95% CI | |
| Depression Status, Tobacco Use, LDL Levels, Gender, Age | |||
| Predicted Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.077 | 0.039 | (0.0039 – 0.15) |
| Predicted Fatal Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.070 | 0.014 | (0.014 – 0.13) |
| Predicted Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.016 | 0.38 | (-0.020 – 0.053) |
| Predicted Fatal Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.0017 | 0.62 | (-0.0050 – 0.0084) |
| Systolic Blood Pressure, Tobacco Use, LDL Levels, Gender, Age | |||
| Predicted Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.068 | 0.069 | (-0.0054 – 0.14) |
| Predicted Fatal Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.063 | 0.029 | (0.0066 – 0.12) |
| Predicted Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.015 | 0.388 | (-0.019 – 0.049) |
| Predicted Fatal Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.0019 | 0.495 | (-0.0036 – 0.0075) |
| BMI, Tobacco Use, LDL Levels, Gender, Age | |||
| Predicted Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.066 | 0.072 | (-0.0061 – 0.14) |
| Predicted Fatal Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.061 | 0.032 | (0.0053 – 0.12) |
| Predicted Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.011 | 0.52 | (-0.024 – 0.047) |
| Predicted Fatal Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.00088 | 0.79 | (-0.0056 – 0.0073) |
| Coefficient | p-value | 95% CI | |
| Depression Status, Tobacco Use, LDL Levels, Gender, Age | |||
| Predicted Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.077 | 0.039 | (0.0039 – 0.15) |
| Predicted Fatal Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.070 | 0.014 | (0.014 – 0.13) |
| Predicted Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.016 | 0.38 | (-0.020 – 0.053) |
| Predicted Fatal Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.0017 | 0.62 | (-0.0050 – 0.0084) |
| Systolic Blood Pressure, Tobacco Use, LDL Levels, Gender, Age | |||
| Predicted Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.068 | 0.069 | (-0.0054 – 0.14) |
| Predicted Fatal Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.063 | 0.029 | (0.0066 – 0.12) |
| Predicted Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.015 | 0.388 | (-0.019 – 0.049) |
| Predicted Fatal Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.0019 | 0.495 | (-0.0036 – 0.0075) |
| BMI, Tobacco Use, LDL Levels, Gender, Age | |||
| Predicted Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.066 | 0.072 | (-0.0061 – 0.14) |
| Predicted Fatal Coronary Heart Disease Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.061 | 0.032 | (0.0053 – 0.12) |
| Predicted Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.011 | 0.52 | (-0.024 – 0.047) |
| Predicted Fatal Stroke Risks vs. PAID Scores | 0.00088 | 0.79 | (-0.0056 – 0.0073) |
C. Young: None. J.A. Dugan: None. A.J. Ray: None. J.H. Shubrook: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc..
