Relationship between Self-management and Quality of Life among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional, Correlational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Diabetes is managed by prescribed medication and dietary measures to control blood sugar, but self-management is a vital aspect of this management. Self-management is a complex bio-psycho-social phenomenon, a crucial task in monitoring the negative consequences of the condition and enhancing quality of life. Objective This study aimed to examine the relationship between self-management and health-related quality of life among Saudi patients with diabetes. Methods A descriptive, cross-sectional, comparative study design was adopted. Self-reported questionnaires were administered to 87 Saudi patients with diabetes in 2021. Data were analysed using Pearson’s r and t-test. Results The total adherence mean of diabetes self-care activities was 2.84 ( SD =1.83), which is considered inadequate. The mean score for the total health-related quality of life was 57.35 ( SD =15.01), which is regarded as fair. Patients with higher physical and social quality of life reported more adherence to self-management activities. Older patients generally experienced poorer quality of life. Patients with higher body mass index reported statistically significantly more body pain. Male patients reported higher total quality of life and role functioning. Females reported more body pain than males. Conclusion Diabetic patients have particular challenges in controlling the disease. Nurses and other healthcare providers need to empower patients to engage in culturally appropriate self-management and physical exercise. The results reported here could be used to design a specific health promotion policy that addresses the promotion of physical exercise and self-management of diabetes care. These policies should consider cultural nuances and be tailored to different demographic groups.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".