Impact of “Conversation Maps” on diabetes distress and self-efficacy of Chinese adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study

Figures & data

Figure 1 Diabetes Conversation Map tools (Chinese edition).

Notes: (A) Diabetes overview. (B) Living with diabetes. (C) Risk factors and complications of diabetes. (D) Starting insulin treatment. (E) Foot care. (F) Healthy eating and exercise.

Figure 2 Flow diagram of study enrollment.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants

Characteristics	Intervention group (n=24)	Control group (n=22)	P-value
Age (years)	63.17±9.44	61.57±9.53	0.58
Sex (%)			0.63
Male (%)	50.00	57.10
Female (%)	50.00	42.90
Weight (kg)	64.35±11.07	66.53±11.54	0.55
BMI (kg/m^2)	24.14±3.33	24.05±3.14	0.93
SBP (mmHg)	124.96±15.56	125.13±33.96	0.98
DBP (mmHg)	77.74±8.37	80.13±6.60	0.36
A1C (%)	7.76±2.47	7.69±1.58	0.90
Diabetes duration (years)	7.38±5.29	6.95±4.54	0.78
Education			0.31
Illiterate	0.0	4.5
Primary school (%)	16.7	4.5
Middle school (%)	20.8	40.9
High school or college (%)	45.8	31.8
University or above (%)	16.7	18.2
With diabetes complication (%)	36.4	18.8	0.41
With family history of diabetes (%)	47.6	62.5	0.37
Injecting insulin (%)	37.5	52.4	0.32

Note: Between-group comparisons were based on nonparametric test with Mann–Whitney U-test and Pearson’s chi-squared test.

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

Figure 3 Mean total score of diabetes distress scale (DDS) of patients with type 2 diabetes in the intervention group and control group before and 6 months after the learning period.

Notes: **P<0.01 between the scores within one group. Error bars represent the standard deviation of total scores.

Figure 4 Mean total score of diabetes empowerment scale-short form (DES-SF) of patients with type 2 diabetes in the intervention group and control group before and 6 months after the learning period.

Notes: **P<0.01 between the scores within one group. Error bars represent the standard deviation of total scores.

Table 2 Between- and within-group differences in the mean score of the World Health Organization’s quality of life instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) at the beginning of the study and 6 months after the learning period

	Intervention group (n=24)		Control group (n=22)		P-value
	Baseline score	6 months score	Baseline score	6 months score	Baseline score between-groups	6 months score between-groups	Scores within intervention group	Scores within control group
Physical	15.16±1.57	15.35±1.38	15.43±2.19	15.43±2.14	0.655	0.891	0.167	1.000
Psychological	15.15±2.44	15.42±2.25	15.44±2.07	15.70±1.76	0.690	0.669	0.036	0.165
Social relationships	14.67±2.02	14.93±1.76	15.33±1.63	15.47±1.41	0.338	0.433	0.270	0.336
Environment	13.80±3.09	14.30±2.67	14.89±2.02	15.08±2.12	0.204	0.316	0.003	0.248

Notes: Data are mean ± standard deviation values. Between-group comparisons were based on nonparametric test with Mann–Whitney U-test, and within-group comparisons were based on nonparametric test with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Figure 5 Trends for A1C values in both groups.

Note: **P<0.01 between the values in two groups.