Associations Between Economic Pressure and Diabetes Efficacy in Couples with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore dyadic associations between economic pressure and diabetes self-efficacy via emotional distress in patients with type 2 diabetes and their partners. Background: Understanding how economic pressure is associated with successful diabetes management is an important area for research, as couples with type 2 diabetes can incur heavy economic pressures that could likely influence diabetes outcomes. Method: Data from 117 married couples were used to test actor-partner associations using moderated mediation analyses in a structural equation modeling framework. Problem-solving communication was tested as a possible moderator of the economic pressure-emotional distress pathway. Results: Results revealed that greater patient economic pressure was associated with lower patient and spouse confidence in the patient's diabetes management ability through higher levels of patient emotional distress. The deleterious association between economic pressure and emotional distress was less pronounced when spouses reported more effective problem-solving communication. Conclusion: These results provide evidence that the economic pressure couples with type 2 diabetes face may reduce the patient and spouse's confidence in the patient's diabetes management ability. Implications: This study demonstrates the importance of couple's relationship processes in buffering the impact of economic pressure on diabetes management, providing a clear target for intervention and education efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".