HomeAboutusEditorial BoardCurrent issuearchivesSearch articlesInstructions for authorsSubscription detailsAdvertise

  Login  | Users online: 345

   Ahead of print articles    Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size  


 
 Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 45  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 283-286
 

Quality of life among diabetics: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary care center of Rohtak, Haryana


1 Department of Community Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India
2 Department of Endocrinology, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India

Date of Submission21-Feb-2019
Date of Acceptance16-Dec-2019
Date of Web Publication1-Sep-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Meena Rajput
House No. 241, Sector-2 HUDA, Rohtak, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_75_19

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 


Introduction: The most severe health threats dominating the low- and middle-income countries are no longer the dreaded communicable diseases; but, they are everyday diseases due to changes in lifestyle, which are the noncommunicable diseases. Quality of life (QOL) is defined by the World Health Organization as an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. QOL assessment in health system is a multidimensional construct that can be measured by evaluating objective levels of health status filtered by the subjective perceptions and expectations of the individual. Aim and Objective: To assess the QOL among diabetics attending the endocrine outpatient department (OPD) in a tertiary care hospital of Haryana. Materials and Methods: A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted at endocrinology OPD of Pt. B. D. Sharma PGIMS Rohtak, Haryana from May 2014 to April 2015. Five hundred diabetics (Type 1 and 2) were recruited for the study. Patients registered on the day of interview were selected using systematic random sampling. A predesigned, pretested, semi-structured schedule which included sociodemographic variables of the study participants along with information about family history of diabetes was filled by interviewing the study subjects in their vernacular language individually. Generic instrument, SF-36 v2 was used to assess the QOL. Results: The mean age of the study participants was 50.41 ± 9.1 years. The mean disease duration was 6.12 ± 5.55 years. Majority of our respondents belonged to Hindu religion (97.4%). The mean scores for the bodily pain domain (79.52 ± 28.15) and social functioning domain (76.47 ± 26.10) of QOL were the highest. Conclusion: The mean scores for the bodily pain domain and social functioning domain of QOL were the highest. Assess the QOL in patients with diabetes by measuring the multiple domains involving physical, psychological and social aspects.


Keywords: Diabetics, quality of life, sociodemographic


How to cite this article:
Rajput M, Arivarasan Y, Khongsit A, Rajput R. Quality of life among diabetics: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary care center of Rohtak, Haryana. Indian J Community Med 2020;45:283-6

How to cite this URL:
Rajput M, Arivarasan Y, Khongsit A, Rajput R. Quality of life among diabetics: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary care center of Rohtak, Haryana. Indian J Community Med [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 24];45:283-6. Available from: http://www.ijcm.org.in/text.asp?2020/45/3/283/294169





   Introduction Top


The most severe health threats facing the low-and middle-income countries are no longer the dreaded communicable diseases; but, they are everyday diseases due to changes in lifestyle that the community understands and could address but fails to take action against it; they are the noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Diabetes mellitus is fast gaining the status of a potential epidemic in India. Currently, NCDs cause more deaths than all other causes combined, and the deaths due to NCDs are projected to rise from 38 million in 2012–52 million by 2030. The 82% of NCD deaths are due to four major NCDs – cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes.[1],[2] Globally, 387 million people are affected by diabetes mellitus which is expected to increase by another 205 million by 2035, with the South East Asian region being the home to about 75 million diabetics.[3] Modern medicine is slowly beginning to realize the importance of perspective of the patient in health care and more scientific studies are needed to elicit the importance of the inter-relationships among health needs, satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL).[4] QOL is defined by the World Health Organization as an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.[5] QOL is highly recognized as an important health outcome in its own right, representing the ultimate goal of all health interventions.[6] Diabetes is a demanding disease. Almost every diabetic person feels that diabetes strongly affects their lives, and most feel burdened by the manifold demands of their disease, an experience that could be called “diabetes overwhelmus.”[7] Low QOL has been shown to affect metabolic control by reducing regimen adherence.[8] When health-related QOL is properly measured in individuals with diabetes and when these results are incorporated into healthcare management, improvements tend to occur in patients' health.[9] This study was conducted to assess the QOL among diabetics attending the endocrine outpatient department (OPD) in a tertiary care hospital of Haryana.


   Materials and Methods Top


Study area

The study will be conducted in the Endocrine OPD attached to the Pt. B. D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana.

Study subjects

Five hundred diabetics (taking a prevalence of 27%[10] and allowable error of 15%), ≥20 years and ≤60 years of age were selected by systematic random sampling method.

Study duration

This study was conducted from May 2014 to April 2015.

Methodology

A predesigned, pretested, semi-structured schedule which included sociodemographic variables of the study participants along with information about family history of diabetes was filled by interviewing the study participants in their vernacular language individually. Weight in kg and height in cm of the study participants were recorded. Weight was recorded for each participant without shoes and heavy clothing, with standing erect using weighing machine to an accuracy of 0.5 kg using a standard procedure. Height was measured with a measuring tape to the nearest of 0.1 cm, using a standard procedure. Using the weight and height, body mass index (BMI) was calculated in Kg/m2, for each subject. Generic instrument, SF-36 v2 was used to assess the QOL. The SF-36 v2 questionnaire has eight domains, namely physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health. The domains were scored on a scale of 0–100, with 0 being worst outcome and 100 being best. The completed schedule was checked for completeness, consistency and was coded. Data entry was done using MS Excel 2010. Categorical data were presented as percentages (%). The statistical tests were performed at 5% level of significance; thus, an association was significant if the P value was <0.05. Binary logistic regression was applied to analyze the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Data analysis was performed using scores and odds ratio using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India). Mean of summary scores of perceived qualities of life were used to categorize quality of perceived QOL into high and low. Ethical clearance was taken from the institutional ethical committee.


   Results Top


A total of 500 study participants were interviewed, and the mean age of the study participants was 50.41 ± 9.1 years. Among the study participants, 51% were males and 49% were females. The overall mean score for all the domains was 63.71 ± 23.17. The mean scores for the bodily pain domain (79.52 ± 28.15) and social functioning domain (76.47 ± 26.10) of QOL were the highest, which indicates that QOL in the bodily pain and social functioning domains was least affected. It was followed by role emotional (68.86 ± 30.76) and role physical (68.46 ± 31.13). Vitality (43.46 ± 19.35) and general health (47.17 ± 19.21) domains had the minimum mean scores indicating that QOL in vitality and general health domains was the most affected. The mean score of males was higher than that of females in all the eight individual domains however the associations were statistically significant only in physical functioning, bodily pain, and vitality domain (P < 0.05). It was found that the overall score in males was higher (65.30 ± 19.15) than their female counterparts, and it was statistically significant (P = 0.006). The QOL was higher in males than females [Table 1].
Table 1: SF-36 Scale: Mean scores and genderwise comparison of individual domains scores of qualities of life (n=500)

Click here to view


The study participants in the obese category were around 25% and 42% in overweight category. Individuals having their BMI in normal range were around 32% and merely 0.4% were in underweight category (BMI <18.5). Among females, individuals, i.e., 37.1% were obese when compared to males (14.1%). The genderwise relationship with BMI was statistically significant [Table 2].
Table 2: Categorization of study participants as per their body mass index

Click here to view


On applying multiple logistic regression, gender and age groups were found to have statistically significant (P < 0.05) association with QOL of study participants. With male gender as the reference group, female participants were nearly 1.5 times (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.565, confidence interval [CI]: 1.082–2.264) more likely to have low QOL. Similarly, when <35 years of age group was taken as reference, study participants in >50 years of age group were 1.7 times more likely to have low QOL (aOR: 1.731, CI: 1.171–2.560). Duration of diabetes and type of treatment taken were found to have statistically significant (P < 0.05) association with QOL of study participants. The QOL was found to be better around 1.7 times (aOR: 1.773, CI: 1.005–3.127) and 1.8 times (aOR: 1.884, CI: 1.078–3.291) in study participants who had disease duration of <5 years than in those with diabetes duration >10 years and 5–10 years, respectively. Further, in terms of treatment type, individuals on insulin alone were likely to have 0.5 times low QOL than those on OHA (aOR: 0.558, CI: 0.358–0.872). No significant association was found in individuals on insulin + OHA while taking reference group as individuals on OHA. No significant association was found between QOL and family history of diabetes [Table 3].
Table 3: Association of independent sociodemographic variables and variables of diabetes with quality of life (logistic regression analysis)

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Assessing QOL is useful for documenting the patient's perceived burden of chronic diseases, tracking changes in health over time, assessing the effects of treatment and quantifying the return on health care investment. In our study, it was observed that 51% study participants were males and 49% were females. Studies conducted by Arnold-Wörner et al. and Srinivas et al. reported that 56.5% and 50% were males, respectively. There was no major gender difference among diabetics attending the tertiary care hospital.[11],[12]

The overall mean score for all the domains in our study was 63.71 ± 23.17 [Table 1]. Vitality (43.46 ± 19.35) and general health (47.17 ± 19.21) domains had the minimum mean scores indicating that vitality and general health domains were the most affected. Bodily pain and social functioning were the least affected domains. Similar findings were reported in a study conducted by Gautam et al., where the overall mean score was 59.47 ± 18.70.[13] These subjective domains are compared by patients to their earlier healthy states so these are always affected.

Our study revealed that the overall QOL score was lower in females (60.38 ± 20.68) and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.006). Males had higher scores in all the eight domains [Table 1]. The QOL was significantly affected among females in three individual domains physical functioning, bodily pain and vitality as compared to males. Sepúlveda et al. reported females to have a significantly low QOL in the domains of physical functioning (P < 0.001), vitality (P = 0.001) and overall QOL than men.[14] A cross-sectional study conducted by Al Hayek et al. showed that the QOL was found to be significantly lower among females on subscale physical functioning and bodily pain than male individuals (P < 0.001).[15] However, Hanninen et al. reported that the QOL did not differ with gender, and the association was statistically insignificant.[16] This difference may be due to females having lesser physical stamina, and they are likely to complain more about their health status as compared to males.

In our study, 25.4% of study participants were obese (BMI ≥30) and 42.4% were overweight [Table 2]. Findings by Bener et al. reported study participants having BMI ≥30 were 26% and overweight (BMI = 25–29.9) were 46%.[17] Similarly, Bourdel-Marchasson et al. also reported that overweight individuals were around 40%.[18] The reason for this might be due to the fact that obesity and overweight are one of the risk factors for developing diabetes.

On logistic regression analysis [Table 3], it was observed that QOL among female subjects was 1.5 times (aOR: 1.565; 95% CI: 1.082–2.264; P = 0.018) lower than male (reference) individuals. Similar findings were reported in a study conducted by Manjunath et al. where the QOL among male individuals was 3.8 times (aOR: 3.85; 95% CI: 1.10–13.51) better than female individuals (reference).[19]

In the age group of 35–50 years, QOL was 1.1 times lower (aOR: 1.152;95% CI: 0.516–2.574; P = 0.730) and in age group >50 years QOL was 1.7 times lower (aOR: 1.731;95% CI: 1.171–2.560; P = 0.006) than those in age group of <35 years (reference) [Table 3]. Multivariate analysis of a study by Papadopoulos et al. revealed that QOL was lower in elderly individuals (P < 0.01).[20] The QOL among study participants decreases as the age advances due to association of other comorbid conditions.

QOL was 1.8 times lower and 1.7 times lower in individuals having a disease duration of 5–10 years and >10 years, respectively, than those individuals having a disease duration of <5 years (reference). Findings observed by Manjunath et al. showed that QOL among individuals with disease duration <5 years was 1.7 times (aOR 1.77; 95% CI: 0.50–5.23) better than individuals having disease duration >5 years (reference).[19] The QOL was 0.5 times lower (aOR: 0.558;95% CI: 0.358–0.872; P = 0.010) and 0.4 times lower (aOR: 0.414;95% CI: 0.1201.427; P = 0.163) in patients on insulin treatment and insulin + OHA, respectively, than those on treatment with OHA alone (reference). Similarly, Bourdel-Marchasson et al. observed that on multivariate analysis, the QOL was low in individuals treated with insulin than individuals on treatment with oral drugs.[18] The most likely reason for a better QOL in patients on OHAs was that it is available in the tertiary care center and its easy administration compared to insulin.


   Conclusion Top


Diabetes is of growing public health concern in developing countries. It imposes a personal burden on an individual and consumes a significant portion of society's scarce healthcare resources. The mean scores for the bodily pain domain and social functioning domain of QOL were highest. There is an essentiality to assess the QOL in patients with diabetes for helping in bringing about a change and improvement.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
World Health Organization. Health Statistics and Information Systems. Estimates for 2000–2012. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available From: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates/en/. [Last accessed on 2015 Dec 25].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
World Health Organization. Projections of Mortality and Causes of Death, 2015 and 2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available From: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/projections/en/. [Last accessed on 2015 Dec 21].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
International Diabetes Federation. International Diabetes Federation Diabetes, 6 ed. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2013. Available From: http://www. diabetesatlas.org. [Last accessed on 2015 Nov 12].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Asadi-Lari M, Tamburini M, Gray D. Patients' needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: Towards a comprehensive model. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:32.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
World Health Organization. Measuring Quality of Life. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997. Available From: http://www.who.int/mental health/media/en_pdf. [Last accessed on 2015 Nov 20].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996;334:835-40.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Quality of life and diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 1999;15:205-18.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Hoey H, Aanstoot HJ, Chiarelli F, Daneman D, Danne T, Dorchy H, et al. Good metabolic control is associated with better quality of life in 2,101 adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1923-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Magwood GS, Zapka J, Jenkins C. A review of systematic reviews evaluating diabetes interventions: Focus on quality of life and disparities. Diabetes Educ 2008;34:242-65.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Al-Aujan S, Al-Aqeel S, Al-Harbi A, Al-Abdulltif E. Patients' satisfaction with diabetes medications in one hospital, Saudi Arabia. Patient Prefer Adherence 2012;6:735-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Arnold-Wörner N, Holle R, Rathmann W, Mielck A. The importance of specialist treatment, treatment satisfaction and diabetes education for the compliance of subjects with type 2 diabetes – Results from a population-based survey. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2008;116:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Srinivas HK, Venkatesha M, Prasad R. Quality of Life assessment among type 2 diabetic patients in rural tertiary centre. Int J Med Sci Public Health 2014;3:415-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Gautam Y, Sharma A, Agarwal A, Bhatnagar M, Trehan RR. A Cross-sectional Study of QOL of diabetic patients at tertiary care hospitals in Delhi. Indian J Community Med 2009;34:346-50.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
14.
Sepúlveda E, Poínhos R, Constante M, Pais-Ribeiro J, Freitas P, Carvalho D. Health-related quality of life in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients in a portuguese central public hospital. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2015;8:219-26.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Al Hayek AA, Robert AA, Al Saeed A, Alzaid AA, Al Sabaan FS. Factors associated with health-related quality of life among Saudi patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional survey. Diabetes Metab J 2014;38:220-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hänninen J, Takala J, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S. Quality of life in NIDDM patients assessed with the SF-20 questionnaire. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998;42:17-27.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Bener A, Al-Hamaq AO, Yousafzai MT, Abdul-Ghani M. Relationship between patient satisfactions with diabetes care and treatment. Niger J Clin Pract 2014;17:218-25.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
18.
Bourdel-Marchasson I, Druet C, Helmer C, Eschwege E, Lecomte P, Le-Goff M, et al. Correlates of health-related quality of life in French people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2013;101:226-35.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Manjunath K, Christopher P, Gopichandran V, Rakesh PS, George K, Prasad JH. Quality of life of a patient with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study in rural South India. J Family Med Prim Care 2014;3:396-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
20.
Papadopoulos AA, Kontodimopoulos N, Frydas A, Ikonomakis E, Niakas D. Predictors of health-related quality of life in type II diabetic patients in Greece. BMC Public Health 2007;7:186.  Back to cited text no. 20
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
           

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Article in PDF (359 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed144    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded104    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

  Sitemap | What's New | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
  2007 - Indian Journal of Community Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
  Online since 15th September, 2007