Background: Quality of life assessment is considered as important measure of outcome in chronic disease management. With increase in prevalence of Diabetes in India it becomes important to assess the quality of life for better care and control. Aims & Objective: Hence this study was conducted with the objectives to assess the Quality of life (QoL) among diabetic patients with respect to anthropometry and blood investigations and assess the influence of risk factors on Quality of Life among Diabetic patients. Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted for a period of 2 months among 180 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients attending rural tertiary care centre. A pretested and structured questionnaire was used to obtain the information on socio-demographic profile, diabetic history. Quality of life was assessed by WHOQOL-BREF. Statistical analysis was carried out by using EPI Info 7 software. Correlations, Students t test and logistic regression analysis are the statistical tests. Results: The mean age of males was 59.56 ± 9.64 and females was 60.90 ± 7.51. Mean scores of Quality of life with respect to physical, psychological, social and environmental domains were significantly higher among females compared to males (p<0.01). Quality of life domains and other continuous variables showed that there is significant positive correlation between age and physical, psychological, social and environmental domains (r = 0.864, 0.396, 0.549, 0.420 respectively and p<0.001). Logistic regression showed that increase in age and HbA1c acts as independent factors to assess the Quality of life. Conclusion: Quality of life among diabetics needs improvement with proper treatment regimens ensuring good glycemic control.
BACKGROUND: The proportion of diabetes is increasing in rural areas due to rapid urbanization and change in life style occurring in these areas. The knowledge about difference in risk factors, prevalence of complications, glycemic outcome in rural and urban diabetics helps in better management and prevention of early complications. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To study and compare the clinical profile and glycemic outcome in diabetic cases from urban and rural areas. METHODOLOGY: Details were collected from 100 diabetic patients (50 urban and 50 rural) attending R. L. Jalappa Hospital outpatient department. Detailed history was taken and physical examination was done. History of complications were noted. Clinical profile, prevalence of complications, glycemic outcome were studied and compared between patients form urban and rural areas. RESULTS: In the study 100 diabetics [50 from urban and 50 from rural] were studied and there was no significant difference between urban and rural diabetics with respect to age, duration of diabetes, BMI, Waist circumference, blood pressure. Hence the study population is matched and comparable. In this study the prevalence of complications was higher in both rural diabetics (78%) and urban diabetic subjects (64%). But there was no statistical significance between complications and the location of the subjects. In urban diabetics, the most common complication in decreasing order was retinopathy (56%), neuropathy (32%), nephropathy (20%) and IHD (12%). Whereas most common complication in rural diabetics were retinopathy (46%), neuropathy (26%), IHD (24%) and nephropathy (20%). Most of the diabetics in both rural (72%) and urban (62%) areas were not screened for associated complications. CONCLUSIONS: There was no much difference in glycemic outcome and prevalence of all complications between urban and rural study groups. Both urban and rural diabetics did not have optimal glycemic control. This may be due to the low rates of awareness of diabetes and its complications in both rural and urban subjects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.