Cited by 84Diabetes Management and EducationAging, Health, and DisabilityHealth disparities and outcomes

Gender Differences in Functional Limitations in Adults Living with Type 2 Diabetes: Biobehavioral and Psychosocial Mediators

Chiu, Ching-Ju, Wray, Linda A.·2011·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Differences in functional limitations between adults with and without diabetes are more evident in women than they are in men. PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate if there are gender differences in biological, behavioral, and psychosocial variables, and how these gender-related variables explain the gender-functional limitations relationship in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We drew data on 1,619 adults with type 2 diabetes from the Health and Retirement Study and its diabetes-specific mail survey. The fit of a series of mediation models to the data was assessed by structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Although women had better diet and blood glucose self-monitoring behaviors than did men, they reported less favorable body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value, blood pressure, early complications, exercise behaviors, perceived control, self-efficacy, coping, depressive symptoms, and family support than did men. Psychosocial factors made an indirect contribution in the gender-functional limitations relationship by way of their strong association with biological and behavioral factors, two factors that directly and completely mediated the gender-functional limitations relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions promoting psychosocial well-being and empowering perceived diabetes control, coping, and self-efficacy in women with type 2 diabetes may help improve biological and behavioral determinants, and further, their long-term functional health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-010-9226-0

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiu, C.-J., & Wray, L. A.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2010-09-09
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
71-82
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2007041833
Cited by
84
References
74
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R21DK078894)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, functional limitations, gender differences, women, psychosocial factors, perceived control, self-efficacy, coping, depressive symptoms, family support, self-monitoring of blood glucose, diet, exercise behavior, HbA1c, body mass index, blood pressure, diabetes complications, mediation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sex Characteristics, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Biomarkers, Health Behavior, Exercise, Body Mass Index, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review