Search

Copyright of Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing is the property of Research & Development of Human Recourses Center (REMAH) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing is the property of Research & Development of Human Recourses Center (REMAH) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Global climate change has increased average environmental temperatures world-wide, simultaneously intensifying temperature variability and extremes. Growing numbers of studies have documented phenological, behavioural and morphological responses to climate change in wild populations. As systemic signals, hormones can contribute to orchestrating many of these phenotypic changes. Yet little is known about whether mechanisms like hormonal flexibility (reversible changes in hormone concentrations) facilitate or limit the ability of individuals, populations and species to cope with a changing climate. In this perspective, we discuss different mechanisms by which hormonal flexibility, primarily in glucocorticoids, could promote versus hinder evolutionary adaptation to changing temperature regimes. We focus on temperature because it is a key gradient influenced by climate change, it is easy to quantify, and its links to hormones are well established. We argue that reaction norm studies that connect individual responses to population-level and species-wide patterns will be critical for making progress in this field. We also develop a case study on urban heat islands, where several key questions regarding hormonal flexibility and adaptation to climate change can be addressed. Understanding the mechanisms that allow animals to cope when conditions become more challenging will help in predicting which populations are vulnerable to ongoing climate change. This article is part of the theme issue 'Endocrine responses to environmental variation: conceptual approaches and recent developments'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the lens of self-determination theory, this quantitative study investigates how patient-provider collaboration through perceived shared decision-making (SDM) and autonomy support impact type 2 diabetes (T2D) outcomes. We sampled 474 individuals over 18 years old who self-identified as having T2D. Completed and valid responses were received from 378 participants from two separate groups in an online survey. Data was analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), AMOS package, version 28, and Mplus, version 8.8. Patient-provider collaboration through autonomy support improved treatment satisfaction (β =.16, ρ <.05) and self-management adherence (β =.43, ρ <.001). While collaboration through SDM improved treatment satisfaction (β =.25, ρ <.01), it worsened SM adherence (β = −.31, ρ <.001). The negative impact of SDM on self-management adherence was mitigated by our moderator, coping ability. However, coping ability minimally impacted treatment satisfaction and SM adherence when autonomous support was provided. Autonomy support increases treatment satisfaction and self-management adherence. SDM enhances treatment satisfaction but may adversely affect self-management adherence. The study also suggests that coping ability can mitigate the negative effect of SDM on self-management adherence, although its influence is limited when autonomy support is provided by the provider. For providers, SDM and autonomy support permits shared power over treatment decisions while fostering independence over self-management tasks. Providers should evaluate patients' coping ability and adapt their approach to care based on the patient's coping capacity. • The physical and psychological demands encountered by SM tasks result in higher instances of non-adherence among patients. • Provider autonomy support increases patient treatment satisfaction and self-management adherence. • Shared decision-making enhances patient treatment satisfaction but may adversely affect self-management adherence. • Coping ability mitigates the adverse effect on SM adherence, but this effect is limited when autonomy support is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]