Who is Distressed Applying the Diabetes Related Distress Scale in a Diabetes Clinic

• Main Authors: Tate ,Joshua M, Wardian,Jana L, Folaron,Irene, True,Mark W, Sauerwein,Tom J
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Subjects: dds (drd Scale); diabetes; drd (diabetes-related distress); eb (Emotional Burden); id (Interpersonal Distress); Medicine and Medical Research; pd (Physician-related Distress); Psychology; psychosocial care; rd (Regimen-related Distress); statistics; STRESS (PSYCHOLOGICAL); t1dm (Type I diabetes); t2dm (Type 2 diabetes without insulin use); t2dm-i (Type 2 diabetes with insulin use)

The American Diabetes Association recently released a position statement on psychosocial care of patients with diabetes recommending assessment of diabetes-related distress (ORD) with validated scales such as the Diabetes-related Distress Scale (DDS). However, there are no published data to date describing the use of the DDS in a clinical setting. We measured ORD, using the DDS, in patients enrolled to our diabetes clinic with results reported as it pertains to diabetes type and medication regimen [Type 1 diabetes (T1DM}, Type 2 diabetes with insulin use (T2DM-i), Type 2 diabetes without insulin use (T2DM)]. Chart review, of Diabetes Center of Excellence patients, identified 810 patients who completed a baseline DDS over a 1 year period. We categorized the DDS results as follows: 2.0 = little or no DRD; 2.0-2.9 = moderate DRD; and 3.0 = high ORD. In addition, we evaluated four domains: Emotional Burden (EB); Physician-related Distress (PD); Regimen-related Distress (RD); and Interpersonal Distress (ID). High total DDS was most prevalent in T2DM-i patients (8.8%); mean total DDS in T2DM-i (1.79) was significantly higher compared to T1DM patients (1.61; p = 0.02). High RD was more prevalent in T2DM-i and T2DM groups (19.1 % and 18.2%, respectively), compared to patients with T1DM (11.1%) with significant differences in means between T1DM (1.84) and T2DM-i (2.12; p = 0.01). Although means were notstatistically different, high EB was most prevalent in T1DM and T2DM-i groups (17.4%; mean = 1.88 and 19.7%; mean = 2.09, respectively), compared to T2DM (10.8%; mean= 1.89). This study is the initial step to identify ORD in a clinical setting; this will allow emphasis of psychosocial interventions in each diabetes group and routine reevaluation of psychosocial well-being using DDS, with the goal of improving diabetes-related outcomes. Further research is needed to assess other contributing factors related to ORD and identify interventions to reduce ORD. American Diabetes Association 2017 Meeting , 09 Jun 2017, 16 Jun 2017,