Quality of life among adult patients living with diabetes in Rwanda: a cross-sectional study in outpatient clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report on the disease-related quality of life of patients living with diabetes mellitus in Rwanda and identify its predictors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, part of the baseline assessment of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinics for non-communicable diseases of nine hospitals across Rwanda. PARTICIPANTS: Between January and August 2019, 206 patients were recruited as part of the clinical trial. Eligible participants were those aged 21-80 years and with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months. Illiterate patients, those with severe hearing or visual impairments, those with severe mental health conditions, terminally ill, and those pregnant or in the postpartum period were excluded PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-specific quality of life was measured with the Kinyarwanda version of the Diabetes-39 (D-39) questionnaire. A glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test was performed on all patients. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected, including medical history, disease-related complications and comorbidities. RESULTS: The worst affected dimensions of the D-39 were 'anxiety and worry' (mean=51.63, SD=25.51), 'sexual functioning' (mean=44.58, SD=37.02), and 'energy and mobility' (mean=42.71, SD=20.69). Duration of the disease and HbA1c values were not correlated with any of the D-39 dimensions. A moderating effect was identified between use of insulin and achieving a target HbA1c of 7% in the 'diabetes control' scale. The most frequent comorbidity was hypertension (49.0% of participants), which had a greater negative effect on the 'diabetes control' and 'social burden' scales in women. Higher education was a predictor of less impact on the 'social burden' and 'energy and mobility' scales. CONCLUSIONS: Several variables were identified as predictors for the five dimensions of quality of life that were studied, providing opportunities for tailored preventive programmes. Further prospective studies are needed to determine causal relationships. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03376607.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".