The Association Between Self‐Management Barriers and Self‐Efficacy in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The Mediating Role of Appraisal
Abstract
Background Patients with higher levels of self-management barriers are more likely to exhibit a lower level of self-efficacy. However, the theoretically meaningful mechanisms underlying the association between the two variables have not yet been established. Aims Informed by the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, this study aimed to examine the potential role of diabetes appraisal on the association of self-management barriers and self-efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods This article presents the secondary data analyses of a multicenter, cross-sectional study. A sample of 346 adults with type 2 diabetes was interviewed, using the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire, the Appraisal of Diabetes scale, the Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form, and the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities. Structure equation modeling was performed with 10,000 bootstrap samples using Mplus 7. Results The hypothesized model provided a good fit to the data (χ 2 = 22.975, df = 33; p = .1144; CFI = 0.989; SRMR = 0.036; RMSEA = 0.042). The mediating effect of diabetes appraisal on the association of self-management barriers and self-efficacy was significant (β = -0.521; 95% CI: -0.865, -0.283), explaining 44.82% of the total effect of barriers on self-efficacy. Significant associations were also detected between diet knowledge and diabetes appraisal (β = 0.148, p = .047). Linking evidence to action Diabetes appraisal plays a mediating role in the association between self-…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Psychological burden induces negative appraisal and avoidant attitude and deteriorates patients' motivation and self-efficacy, resulting in resignation, apathy, or disengagement from self-care activities.
“Psychological burden induces a negative appraisal and avoidant attitude and deteriorates patients' motivation and self-efficacy, resulting in resignation, apathy, or disengagement from performing self-care activities (Cheng et al., 2016).”
From Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. (2024) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- Cheng, L., Sit, J. W. H., Leung, D. Y. P., & Li, X.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Xi'an Jiaotong University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Li
- Venue
- Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04-13
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 356-362
- ISSN
- 1545-102X (ISSN-L)
- 1741-6787
- OpenAlex
- W2338663557
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Wellbeing Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, diabetes self-management, self-efficacy, transactional model of stress and coping, mediating effect, nutrition knowledge, Chinese patients
- MeSH terms
- China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Feeding Behavior, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Patient Participation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Self Efficacy
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
