Cited by 88Diabetes Management and EducationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDiabetes Management and Research

Assessment of diabetes acceptance can help identify patients with ineffective diabetes self-care and poor diabetes control

Schmitt, A., Reimer, A., Kulzer, B., Haak, T., Gahr, A., Hermanns, N.·2014·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

AIMS: To estimate the associations between insufficient diabetes acceptance and relevant diabetes outcomes. METHODS: A total of 320 patients completed questionnaires on diabetes non-acceptance (the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire), diabetes distress (the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale), depressive mood (the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), coping with illness (the Freiburg Questionnaire of Coping with Illness), self-care activities (the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure) and quality of life (the Short Form-36 Health Questionnaire). A six-item version of the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire showing good reliability and validity was established, and the associations between insufficient acceptance and clinical outcomes were estimated. RESULTS: Higher diabetes non-acceptance correlated significantly with less active coping (-0.37), reduced self-care (-0.43) and higher HbA1c levels (0.31), higher diabetes distress (0.53) and more depressive symptoms (0.36). Correlations of diabetes non-acceptance with diabetes self-care/glycaemic control were significantly higher than were those of depressive mood or diabetes distress with these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Low diabetes acceptance is associated with impaired self-care and glycaemic control. Assessment of diabetes acceptance may facilitate the detection of patients at high risk and may present an essential target for treatments to improve diabetes control that is more relevant than elevated depressive mood or diabetes distress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.12553

Cites

24 of 24 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
Schmitt, A., Reimer, A., Kulzer, B., Haak, T., Gahr, A., & Hermanns, N.
Affiliations
German Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DE)
Corresponding author
Schmitt, A.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-08-02
Volume
31
Issue
11
Pages
1446-1451
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W2091739234
Cited by
88
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GI1107)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
diabetes self-care, glycemic control, HbA1c, diabetes distress, depressive mood, coping with illness, quality of life, Problem Areas in Diabetes scale, diabetes risk assessment
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Attitude to Health, Combined Modality Therapy, Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Germany, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Stress, Psychological, Prevalence, Diabetes Complications

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