Observational analysis reveals depression linked to diabetes-related issues in adults with type 1 diabetes, indicating the need for targeted interventions.
Introduction Depressive tendencies associated with difficulty in the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) could hinder appropriate intervention. Factors related to depressive tendencies in Japan remain unclear, though recent advances in medication may have affected them. Materials and methods Three hundred and fifty‐two Japanese patients with T1D registered in the Juntendo‐Aso Type 1 (JAT‐1) Diabetes Cohort Study were divided into two groups based on depressive tendencies assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory‐II score. We compared background characteristics of the patients between the groups and also analyzed additional clinical factors and quality of life scores. Results The patients with a Beck Depression Inventory‐II score ≧14 (35.5%) are classified as having depressive tendencies. Compared to the individuals without depressive characteristics, those with depressive tendencies had significantly higher proportions of females, welfare recipients, and shift workers; a higher proportion of individuals with microvascular complications; higher diastolic pressure; eating out or taking out food more frequently for dinner; lower protein intake; and higher scores in the total score of diabetes‐related problem domains and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Multiple regression analysis revealed that diastolic blood pressure, welfare recipient status, total score of diabetes‐related problem domains (PAID), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index were significantly associated factors with BDI‐II score, and the PAID score showed the strongest association. Conclusions This study revealed that diabetes‐specific psychological burden, evaluated with the PAID score, is strongly associated with depressive tendencies. Routine use of the PAID could support the strategies to prevent depression in people with type 1 diabetes by identifying those at risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ikeda et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: