| Summary: | Ana Cristina García-Ulloa,1 Valeria Miranda-Gil,1 Michelle Díaz-Pineda,1 María Fernanda Garnica-Carrillo,1 Nancy Haydée Serrano-Pérez,1 Maria Sofia Tron-Gomez,2 Grecia Piedad Colorado Báez,3 Christian Alejandro Cruz Madrigal,3 Sergio Hernández-Jiménez1 for the Group of Study CAIPaDi1Centro de Atención Integral del Paciente con Diabetes (CAIPaDi), Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; 2Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Estado de México, México; 3Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City, MexicoCorrespondence: Sergio Hernández-Jiménez, Vasco de Quiroga No. 15, Colonia Sección XVI, Tlalpan, Mexico City, 14080, Mexico, Tel +1 52 55 54870900 (5045) ; +1 52 55 55737378, Email sergio.hernandezj@incmnsz.mxPurpose: To analyze and compare metabolic, lifestyle and mental health parameters in relatives and people-with-T2DM (PDM) with and without support.Patients and Methods: We included 160 patients with < 5 years of diagnosis of T2DM, without disabling complications, and non-smokers, attending a multidisciplinary program for diabetes control, and their accompanying relatives. If the patients or relatives abandoned the program, we contacted them and asked to take laboratory tests and answer surveys regarding anxiety, depression, and perception of their family support. Variables distribution was assessed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. We used ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis Tests, according to variable distribution. Frequencies and percentages are used for categorical values and analyzed with a chi-square test. We separated the participants in four groups: relatives with and without support and PDM with and without support.Results: We included 160 participants, age 51± 10, and 54.3% women. Total cholesterol (188± 36 vs 204± 43 vs 170± 34 vs 181± 35 mg/dL, p=0.001), LDL-cholesterol (113± 35 vs 125± 27 vs 101 ± 30 vs 109± 29, p=0.008), and non-HDL cholesterol (143± 32 vs 154 ± 30 vs 129± 33 vs 135± 35 mg/dL, p=0.010) were higher in the group without support. Although patients without family support had lower values, they did not achieve metabolic goals. Weight (75± 17 vs 77± 19 vs 74.2± 10.5 vs 90.2± 17.3 kg) and body mass index (28.9± 4.8 vs 30.1± 4.7 vs 27.4± 3.3 vs 33± 4.3 kg/m2) were higher in PDM without family support (p< 0.001 for both).Conclusion: Support in PDM and their families is important in metabolic control. However, raising awareness among family members to screen for diabetes and changes in lifestyle are points to improve. Including the evaluation of social and family support will allow a more complete assessment to identify barriers to achieving goals.Keywords: family support, social support, relatives, patients, type 2 diabetes
|
|---|