Cited by 114Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Associations of depression and diabetes distress with self-management behavior and glycemic control.

Schmitt, Andreas, Bendig, Eileen, Baumeister, Harald, Hermanns, Norbert, Kulzer, Bernhard·2021·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the independent associations of depression and diabetes distress with self-management and glycemic outcome in Type I (T1DM) and Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHOD: Six hundred six people with T1DM or T2DM participated in a cross-sectional survey including measures of depression (PHQ-9), diabetes distress (PAID-5), self-management behavior (DSMQ), and glycemic outcome (HbA1c). Structural equation modeling was performed to analyze the independent linear associations (standardized coefficients) between these variables. RESULTS: In those with T1DM (n = 339), both depressive symptoms and diabetes distress were associated with lower self-management (-0.34, p < .001, and -0.16, p = .007, respectively) and thereover (indirectly) with higher HbA1c (0.20, p < .001, and 0.10, p = .016, respectively); direct associations with HbA1c were not observed. In those with T2DM (n = 267), only depressive symptoms were associated with lower self-management (-0.41, p < .001) and thus (indirectly) with higher HbA1c (0.17, p < .001). Diabetes distress, by contrast, was directly associated with higher HbA1c (0.20, p = .003) but not with self-management. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that depression is linked to less optimal diabetes self-management, thus leading to less optimal glycemic outcome. The associations were relatively consistent across diabetes types. Diabetes distress was additionally associated with higher glycemic levels, suggesting that people with both depression and diabetes distress might have the least optimal outcome. The conclusions are limited by the cross-sectional study design, self-report assessment of behavior, and potential bias arising from questionnaire measures. Further research is needed to support these findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/hea0001037

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitt, A., Bendig, E., Baumeister, H., Hermanns, N., & Kulzer, B.
Affiliations
  • German Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DE)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2021-02
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
113-124
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W3110550372
Cited by
114
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 7
FWCI
7.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • German Center for Diabetes Research (82DZD01101)
  • German Diabetes Foundation (375.10.15)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, diabetes distress, diabetes self-management, glycemic control, HbA1c, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, depressive symptoms, psychosocial factors in diabetes
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Glycemic Control, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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