ArticleHealth science reports2020
Association between unrealistic comparative optimism and self-management in individuals with type 2 diabetes: Results from a cross-sectional, population-based study.
Article in Health science reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building a House of Skills-A Study of Functional Health Literacy and Numeracy among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Hungary.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Unrealistic Optimism and Risk for COVID-19 Disease.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Association between unrealistic comparative optimism and self-management in individuals with type 2 diabetes: Results from a cross-sectional, population-based study.Health science reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsUnrealistic comparative optimism (UO), as the erroneous judgement of personal risks to be lower than the risks of others, could help explain differences in diabetes self-management. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with type 2 diabetes who underestimate their comparative heart attack risk, have a lower adherence regarding recommended self-management.
methodsWe used data from individuals with type 2 diabetes participating in the German KORA (Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg) GEFU 4 (self-administered health questionnaire 2016) study. UO was estimated by comparing participants' subjective comparative risk for having a heart attack within the next 5-years (ie, "higher than others," "average," "lower than others"), with their objective comparative 10-year cardiovascular disease risk based on the Framingham equations. We estimated binary logistic and linear regression models to analyze which characteristics were associated with UO and to test the association between UO and participants' self-management behaviors (ie, regular self-monitoring of body weight, blood sugar, and blood pressure, regular foot care, keeping a diabetes diary, and having a diet plan), and their sum score, respectively. All models were adjusted for socio-demographic and disease-related variables.
resultsThe studied sample included n = 633 individuals with type 2 diabetes (mean age 70.7 years, 45% women). Smokers and males were more likely to show UO than nonsmokers and females. Furthermore, a higher blood pressure and a higher body mass index were associated with a higher likelihood of UO regarding heart attack risk. However, UO was not significantly associated with patient self-management.
conclusionsUnfavorable health behavior and risk factors are associated with UO. However, our results suggest that UO with regard to perceived heart attack risk may not be a relevant factor for patient self-management in those with type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.