Two for one? Effects of a couples intervention on partners of persons with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To compare the outcomes of partners who participated in a telephone couples behavioural intervention to improve glycaemic control in persons with Type 2 diabetes with those of untreated partners of participants in an individual intervention or education; to explore 'ripple effects', i.e. positive behaviour changes seen in untreated partners. METHODS: The Diabetes Support Project was a three-arm randomized telephone intervention trial comparing outcomes of couples calls (CC), individual calls (IC) and diabetes education calls (DE). Couples included one partner with Type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%). All arms received self-management education (two calls). CC and IC arms participated in 10 additional behaviour change calls. CC included partners, emphasizing partner communication, collaboration and support. Blinded assessments were performed at 4, 8 and 12 months. Partner outcomes were psychosocial (diabetes distress, relationship satisfaction, depressive symptoms), medical (BMI, blood pressure) and behavioural (fat intake, activity). RESULTS: Partners' (N = 268) mean age was 55.8 years, 64.6% were female and 29.9% were from minority ethnic groups. CC (vs. IC and DE) partners had greater reductions in diabetes distress, greater increases in marital satisfaction (4 and 8 months), and some improvements in diastolic BP. There were no consistent differences among arms in other outcomes. There was no evidence of a dietary or activity behaviour ripple effect on untreated partners, i.e. comparing partners in the IC and DE arms. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative couples intervention resulted in significant improvements in partner diabetes distress and relationship satisfaction. There were no consistent effects on behavioural or medical partner outcomes, and no evidence of diet or activity behaviour ripple effects, suggesting that partners should be targeted directly to achieve these changes. (Clinical Trial Registry No: NCT01017523).

Diabetes distress is linked with worsening diabetes management over time in adults with Type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To determine the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between diabetes distress and diabetes management. METHODS: In a non-interventional study, 224 adults with Type 1 diabetes were assessed for diabetes distress, missed insulin boluses, hypoglycaemic episodes, and HbA1c at baseline and 9 months. RESULTS: At baseline, greater distress was associated with higher HbA1c and a greater percentage of missed insulin boluses. Longitudinally, elevated baseline distress was related to increased missed insulin boluses, and decreases in distress were associated with decreases in HbA1c . In supplementary analyses, neither depression symptoms nor a diagnosis of major depressive disorder was associated with missed insulin boluses, HbA1c or hypoglycaemic episodes in cross-sectional or longitudinal analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Significant cross-sectional and longitudinal associations were found between diabetes distress and management; in contrast, no parallel associations were found for major depressive disorder or depression symptoms. Findings suggest that elevated distress may lead to more missed insulin boluses over time, suggesting a potential intervention target. The covarying association between distress and HbA1c points to the complex and likely interactive associations between these constructs. Findings highlight the need to address distress as an integral part of diabetes management in routine care.

Prevalence of depression in Type 1 diabetes and the problem of over-diagnosis.

AIMS: To determine the prevalence of depression and diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes and the rate of false-positives when compared with rates of major depressive disorder. METHODS: The sample consisted of 368 individuals with Type 1 diabetes, aged > 19 years. Individuals completed: the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ8), which was coded using four scoring criteria (scores > 10, >12 and >15, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM) algorithm scores); the Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale; and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders (SCID) to assess major depressive disorder. RESULTS: The prevalence rates of depression according to the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire were: score >10, 11.4%; score >12, 7.1%; score >15, 3.8%; and positive algorithm result, 4.6%. The prevalence of major depressive disorder was 3.5%; and the prevalence of at least moderate diabetes distress was 42.1%. Depending on the criterion used, the false-positive rate when using the Patient Health Questionnaire compared with the results when using the SCID varied from 52 to 71%. Of those classified as depressed on the PHQ-8 or Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders, between 92.3 and 96.2% also reported elevated diabetes distress. No significant association was found between any group classed as having depression according to the PHQ8 or the SCID and HbA1c concentration. Depression was significantly associated with more other life stress, more complications and a lower level of education. CONCLUSIONS: We found an unexpectedly low rate of current depression and major depressive disorder in this diverse sample of adults with Type 1 diabetes, and a very high rate of false-positive results using the Patient Health Questionnaire. Considering the high prevalence of diabetes distress, much of what has been considered depression in adults with Type 1 diabetes may be attributed to the emotional distress associated with managing a demanding chronic disease and other life stressors and not necessarily to underlying psychopathology.