Diabetes Self-Management and Health-Related Quality of Life among Primary Care Patients with Diabetes in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes self-management (DSM) practices are an important determinant of health-related outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The purpose of this study is to explore DSM practices and their relationship with the HRQOL of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary health care centers (PHCCs) in Qatar. In this cross-sectional study, data were collected from PHCC patients with diabetes via interview-administered questionnaires by utilizing two instruments: the DSM questionnaire (DSMQ) and the HRQOL Short Form (SF-12). Frequencies were calculated for categorical variables and medians were calculated for continuous variables that were not normally distributed. A statistical comparison between groups was conducted using chi-square for categorical data. Binary logistic regression was utilized to examine the relationship between the significant independent factors and the dependent variables. A total of 105 patients completed the questionnaire, 51.4% of whom were male. Approximately half of the participants (48.6%) reported poor overall DSM practices, and 50.5% reported poor physical health quality of life (PC) and mental health quality of life (MC). Female participants showed significantly higher odds of reporting poor DSM than male participants (OR, 4.77; 95% CI, 1.92–11.86; p = 0.001). Participants with a secondary education (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04–0.81; p = 0.025) and university education (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04–0.84; p = 0.029) showed significantly lower odds of reporting poor DSM than participants with no/primary education. Older participants showed higher odds of reporting poor PC than younger participants (OR 11.04, 95% CI, 1.47–82.76 and OR 8.32; 95% CI, 1.10–62.86, respectively). Females also had higher odds for poor PC than males (OR 7.08; 95% CI, 2.21–22.67), while participants with a secondary (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03–0.62; p = 0.010) and university education (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.57; p = 0.008) showed significantly lower odds of reporting poor MC. In conclusion, patients with diabetes reported poor overall DSM practices and poor HRQOL. Our findings suggest intensifying efforts to deliver culturally appropriate DSM education to patients and to empower patients to take charge of their health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".