Alexithymia in diabetes patients: its relationship with perceived social support and glycaemic control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess whether there is an association between alexithymia in patients with diabetes and the levels of perceived social support and glycaemic control. BACKGROUND: In the literature, whether inadequate perceived social support is a cause or effect of alexithymia has also not been clearly explained. It is stated that it is difficult to determine from where these contradictions arise, and there is a need for more studies on this topic. METHOD: This cross-sectional and correlational study included 537 patients with type I and type 2 diabetes. The data were collected using a Patient Information Form including the patient's HbA1c value that reflected their glycaemic control level, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. The study was reported according to the STROBE Declaration. RESULTS: Among the patients with diabetes, 63.9% showed signs of alexithymia. Alexithymia had a negative relationship with perceived social support and a positive relationship with HbA1c. Additionally, it was determined that the patients who showed signs of alexithymia had lower levels of perceived social support in comparison with those who did not show such signs, whereas the HbA1c levels of the former were also higher than those of the latter. Moreover, it was found that the duration of the disease, HbA1c levels and levels of perceived social support from family and a significant other explained 30% of the total variance in the level of alexithymia. CONCLUSION: Alexithymia was seen prevalently among the patients with diabetes, and it was associated with a reduced level of perceived social support and weak glycaemic control. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: It is recommended to provide patients with psychosocial support in the scope of holistic care and include the individuals who provide care for and support the patient in the patient's management of the disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".