| Title |
Social support in type II diabetes care: a case of too little, too late
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dmso.s37183 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amudha Kadirvelu, Sivalal Sadasivan, Shu Hui Ng |
| Abstract |
Coping with type II diabetic patients is increasingly posing large financial burdens, sorely felt especially by growing economies. Self-management has been found to be an effective approach towards maintaining good control in diabetics. However, although efforts at implementing self-management have had initial success, there has been a lack of sustainability. This review examines the different components impinging on self-care among type II diabetic patients. These include the critical role of social support, the need for support from health care providers, the value of support from family and friends, the influence of sex and cultural factors in self-care behavior, the benefits of peer support, and the role of literacy in diabetes self-care. Despite the mounting evidence for the effectiveness of social support in diabetes care, and the various stakeholders including this in their clinical guidelines, there has only been a lukewarm response from policy-makers towards ensuring its implementation. Hence, more effort is required from health care providers in moving away from just understanding the effects of new drugs and subsequently putting their patients on these drugs, and going back to the basics of communicating with the patients, understanding their woes, and helping to motivate/empower their patients. This paper analyzes the various components of social support, their influence on diabetes self-care, and how health care providers can help in this process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 174 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 42 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 13% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 45 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#837
of 1,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,651
of 202,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.