Search

Background: The majority of the studies in this area focus on the psychological impact of having diabetic children or adolescents on parents, while a limited number of studies have investigated the effect of diabetes on the mental health status of family members in the general population. Thus, the aim of the current study is to explore the possible association between mental health disorders (depression, anxiety and panic) and diabetes status of family members among a national sample of adults in the United States.Methods: Our analysis included 1,787 and 25,574 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004 and 2005-2016, respectively. Diabetes status of family members was self-reported by the participants, and depression was assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in NHANES (1999-2004) and NHANES (2005-2016), respectively.Results: With NHANES (1999-2004) participants, logistic regression indicated a marginally significant association between depression and diabetes status of family members after multivariable adjustment (P = 0.07), and trend analysis suggested that participants who had more diabetic family members were at a higher risk of depression (Ptrend < 0.01). We further validated these results using data from NHANES (2005-2016), which indicated diabetes status of family members was associated with both clinically relevant depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) and clinically significant depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 15) (P < 0.01).Limitations: The information about the mental health status of family members and the exact role of participants in caring for diabetic patients was inadequate.Conclusions: A positive association between depression and diabetes status of family members was observed in the general population, suggesting that psychological interventions targeting the family members of diabetic patients are worthy of attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-reported measures for body mass index (BMI) are considered a limitation in research design, especially when they are a primary outcome. Studies have found some populations to be quite accurate when self-reporting BMI; however, there is mixed research on the accuracy of self-reported measurements in adolescents. The aim of this study is to examine the accuracy of self-reported BMI by comparing it with measured BMI in a sample of U.S. adolescents and to understand gender differences. This cross-sectional study collected self-reported height and weight measurements of students from five high schools in four states (Tennessee, South Dakota, Kansas and Florida). Trained researchers took height and weight of students for an objective measurement. BMI was calculated from both sources and categorized (underweight, normal, overweight and obese) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's BMI-for-age percentiles. Participants ( n 425; 51⋅0 % female) had a mean age of 16⋅3 years old, and the majority were White (47⋅5 %). Limits of agreement (LOA) analysis revealed that BMI and weight were underreported, and height was overreported in the overall sample, in females, and in males. LOA analysis was fair for BMI in all three groups. Overall agreement in BMI categorisation was considered substantial ( Κ 0⋅71, P < 0⋅001). As BMI increased, more height and weight inaccuracies led to decreased accuracy in BMI categorisation, and the specificity of obese participants was low (50⋅0 %). This study's findings suggest that using self-reported values to categorize BMI is more accurate than using continuous BMI values when self-reported measures are used in health-related interventions., (© The Author(s) 2020.)