A study of the relationship between social support, depression, alexithymia and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a structural equation modeling approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The aim of this research was to ascertain the correlations between alexithymia, social support, depression, and glycemic control in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Additionally, this study sought to delve into the potential mediating effects of social support and depression in the relationship between alexithymia and glycemic control. Method A purposive sampling methodology was employed to select a cohort of 318 patients afflicted with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hailing from a care establishment situated in Chengdu City. This investigation embraced a cross-sectional framework, wherein instruments such as the General Information Questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20, the Social Support Rating Scale, and the Hamilton Depression Scale were judiciously administered. The primary objective of this endeavor was to unravel the interplay that exists amongst alexithymia, social support, depression, and glycemic control. The inquiry discerned these interrelationships through both univariate and correlational analyses, subsequently delving into a comprehensive exploration of the mediating ramifications engendered by social support and depression in the nexus between alexithymia and glycemic control. Results The HbA1c level of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus was recorded as (8.85 ± 2.107), and their current status with regards to alexithymia, social support, and depression were measured as (58.05 ± 4.382), (34.29 ± 4.420), and (7.17 ± 3.367), respectively. Significant correlations were found between HbA1c and alexithymia (R=0.392, P<0.01), social support (R=-0.338, P<0.01), and depression (R=0.509, P<0.01). Moreover, alexithymia correlation with social support (R=-0.357, P<0.01) and with depression (R=0.345, P<0.01). Regarding the mediation analysis, the direct effect of alexithymia on HbA1c was calculated to be 0.158, while the indirect effect through social support and depression were 0.086 and 0.149, respectively. The total effect value was determined to be 0.382, with the mediating effect accounting for 59.95%, and the direct effect accounting for 40.31%. Conclusion Alexithymia exerts both direct and indirect adverse effects on glycemic control, thereby exacerbating disease outcomes. Hence, it is imperative to prioritize the mental health status of individuals with type 2 diabetes to enhance overall well-being, ameliorate diabetes-related outcomes, elevate patients’ quality of life, and alleviate the psychological distress and financial burden associated with the condition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".