MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte

The Experience of Managing Diet in Type 2 Diabetes Versus Coeliac Disease : Important Differences That influence Success

2017· other· en· W6908900602 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésType 2 diabetesFeelingDiseaseSubclinical infectionAddictionDiabetes mellitusCoeliac diseaseFood addiction

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BackgroundType 2 diabetes has been linked to obesity, binge eating disorder and food addiction (5). It is often managed by diet and exercise. The importance of self-management in attaining and maintaining glycaemic control has been documented extensively (1, 2, and 4). Research suggests people with type 2 diabetes often find managing diet difficult (1, 4). We considered whether this difficulty simply reflects the challenge of altering diet and lifestyle per se, or whether there are some unique factors in type 2 diabetes related to the addictive phenotype.AimsThe aim of this study was to compare the experience of managing diet in type 2 diabetes with that of another diet managed condition (coeliac disease) that has not been associated with an addictive phenotype. We predicted there would be some similarities, but also some significant differences between these groups.MethodParticipants (n = 461) were recruited through social media, local support groups and Prolific, which is a participant recruitment tool (University of Oxford). Self-report questionnaire measures of food addiction and self-control were analysed for group differences alongside measures of mood, subclinical diabetes-related distress, and health perceptions.ResultsBoth groups reported that thinking about their health made them feel depressed and both groups reported making clearer decisions about what and how much they eat after being diagnosed with their condition. People with type 2 diabetes, however, reported more often overeating, and more often feeling upset when this occurred. The type 2 diabetes group also reported perceiving more negative thoughts and beliefs about food/eating compared to the coeliac disease group, and they reported feeling like life was less rewarding overall. Enjoyment of a favourite meal showed a much greater change after diagnosis in the type 2 diabetes group. Finally, the coeliac disease group reported much greater anxiety around attending social situations involving food intake.DiscussionResults suggest that being diagnosed with a long-term diet managed condition has a negative psychological impact, as would be expected. But there are important differences in these conditions. Overeating and feeling upset as a result is much greater in people with type 2 diabetes. In addition, this group appear to suffer negative mood linked to the loss of food as a u2018rewardu2019 in life. These findings are characteristic of an addictive phenotype. In contrast people with coeliac disease reported much higher social anxiety, most likely linked to a fear of being u2018glutenedu2019. Our results therefore suggest that self-control and the relationship with food is very different in these two diet managed conditions. These findings are confirmed by qualitative work in our sister study and suggest that an improved understanding of the psychology underlying these conditions has the potential to impact on the design of care and intervention for successful outcomes.References1. Fisher, L. et al. (2008) u2018A longitudinal study of affective and anxiety disorders, depressive affect and diabetes distress in adults with Type 2 diabetesu2019, Diabetic Medicine. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25(9), pp. 1096u20131101. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02533.x.2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2017) u2018Type 2 diabetes in adults: management ' Guidance and guidelines ' NICEu2019, NICE Guidelines. NICE. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28 (Accessed: 14 February 2019).3. Polonsky, W. H. et al. (2005) u2018Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: Development of the Diabetes Distress Scaleu2019, Diabetes Care, 28(3), pp. 626u2013631. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.3.626.4. RS, M. et al. (2005) u2018Mood and psychotic disorders and type 2 diabetes: A metabolic triadu2019, Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 29(2), pp. 122u2013132.5. World Health Organization (2016) u2018Global Report on Diabetesu2019, Isbn, 978, p. 88. doi: ISBN 978 92 4 156525 7.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,082
Tête enseignante GPT0,362
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)Travaux en français237 207