Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study finds low education, prolonged diabetes, and lack of family support increase anxiety in diabetic retinopathy patients undergoing laser therapy, suggesting a need for screening.
To explore and analyze the factors associated with anxiety in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) undergoing panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). This was a prospective cross-sectional study involving patients with DR undergoing their first PRP treatment. All participants had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Anxiety level was assessed using the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS). The data of demographic, ocular, diabetes-related, general health, family support, and PRP awareness was collected. The score < 60 defined as low anxiety (LA group), and ≥ 60 defined as high anxiety (HA group). A total of 198 patients were included, and the average anxiety score was 60.57 ± 4.86 (range 46–75). Seventy-three patients were classified into the LA group, with an average anxiety score of 55.70 ± 3.24 (range 46–59), while 125 patients were in the HA group, with an average anxiety score of 63.42 ± 3.04 (range 60–74). Statistical differences were observed in sex ( p = 0.001), educational level ( p = 0.001), diabetes duration ( p = 0.002), glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ( p = 0.021), family accompaniment ( p = 0.001), and PRP awareness ( p < 0.001) between the two groups. Lower educational level (OR = 0.652, 95%CI: 0449-0.946, p = 0.024), longer diabetes duration (OR = 1.082, 95%CI:1.015–1.152, p = 0.015), and lack of family support (OR = 0.397, 95%CI:0.186–0.846, p = 0.017) were independent risk factors for anxiety, and the combined model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.745. Lower educational level, longer diabetes duration, and absence of family accompaniment are key predictors of anxiety for patients with DR undergoing their first PRP. Psychological screening before PRP based on these predictors can help identify high-anxiety patients and guide individualized supportive care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: