Type D personality and social relations in adults with diabetes: results from diabetes MILES – The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether individual differences in Type D personality (combination of negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI)) could explain heterogeneity in perceived social support and relationship adjustment (intimate partner relationship) among people living with diabetes. Design: In the Diabetes MILES-The Netherlands survey, 621 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (54% female, age: 56 ± 14 years) completed measures of Type D personality (DS14), perceived social support and relationship adjustment. We used established DS14 cutoff scores to indicate Type D personality, high NA only, high SI only and reference groups. Results: Participants from the Type D and NA only groups perceived lower levels of social support (Welch[3,259] ¼ 37.27, p < 0.001), and relationship adjustment (Welch[3,191] ¼ 14.74; p < 0.01) than those from the SI only and reference groups. Type D was associated with lower social support (lowest quartile; adjusted OR ¼ 8.73; 95%CI ¼ 5.05 $ 15.09; p < 0.001) and lower relationship adjustment (lowest quartile; adjusted OR ¼ 3.70; 95%CI ¼ 2.10 $ 6.53; p < 0.001). Type D was also associated with increased levels of loneliness. Conclusion: Participants with Type D and participants with high NA only tend to experience less social support and less relationship adjustment. Type D personality was also associated with more loneliness. Experiencing lower social support and relationship adjustment may complicate coping and self-management in people with diabetes.

Investigating predictors of community integration in individuals after stroke in a residential setting: A longitutinal study

“…While diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for stroke, this comorbidity has not been investigated with respect to the outcome of community integration, despite being associated with worse functional outcomes [33][34][35][36]. Our results indicate that DM is an independent predictor of reduced community integration.…”

“…Psychological aspects of individuals living with diabetes was investigated in a national representative sample from The Netherlands. These authors found that people with type D personality (individuals with simultaneous experience of high level of negative affectivity and social inhibition) tend to experience less social support, greater social inhibition and solitude, which compromises how they face the consequences of disease [36] To date, it is not abundantly clear which resources in the environment help or hinder the reintegration of stroke survivors into the community. The present study selected some factors in the physical environment related to the infrastructure surrounding residences, since limited accessibility may restrict an individual's ability to interact in an urban environment [37].…”

Predictors of dietary self-efficacy in high glycosylated hemoglobin A1c type 2 diabetic patients

“…Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the main measures. Regarding the main measures of interest, subjects reported low 16). However, there was a significant difference in social and emotional loneliness for cohabitation and living alone (Z SOCIAL ¼ À4.51; P < 0.001; Z EMOTIONAL ¼ À2.98; P ¼ 0.003).…”

Competitive Anxiety, and Guilt and Shame Proneness From Perspective Type D and Non-type D Football Players

“…There are also intellectual deficits, which are manifested by a reduction in the ability to learn, think logically, and concentrate, as well as the ability to perform more complex tasks, the presence of which are barriers to successful sports performance (Schneiderman et al, 2005;Wu et al, 2020). A deeper study of the issue has contributed to the creation of a type D personality that describes the body's response to distress (Mols and Denollet, 2010;Kupper and Denollet, 2018;Spek et al, 2018). Type D personality is characterized by a high level of negative affectivity and a high level of social inhibition (Sher, 2005;Kasai et al, 2013;Li et al, 2016;Jandackova et al, 2017;Borkoles et al, 2018;Son et al, 2018).…”