Effects of family function, depression, and self-perceived burden on loneliness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A serial multiple mediation model

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2573523/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effects of family function, depression, and self-perceived burden on loneliness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A serial multiple mediation model

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2573523/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 30 Aug, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Psychiatry →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has become a major lifestyle disease endangering human health worldwide. Patients with T2DM face varying degrees of loneliness, which adversely affects their family and the larger society. This study investigates the serial multiple mediating roles of depression and self-perceived burden between family function and loneliness in the T2DM population of China.

Methods

In total, 260 T2DM patients were included. They rated themselves based on UCLA Loneliness Scale, Self-Rating Depression Scale, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, Family Care Index, and Self-Perceived Burden Scale. Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses were conducted to clarify the association among variables. The SPSS macro-PROCESS program was used for a series of multiple mediation analyses.

Results

Family function, depression, self-perceived burden, and loneliness were significantly correlated (P < 0.01). Family function not only has a direct negative impact (effect = -2.809; SE = 0.213; 95%CI: LL = -3.228, UL = -2.390) on loneliness, but also has an indirect impact on loneliness through the independent mediating role of depression (effect = -0.862; SE = 0.165; 95%CI: LL = -1.202, UL = -0.567) and self-perceived burden (effect = -0.288; SE = 0.107; 95%CI: LL = -0.525, UL = -0.114) and the chain mediating role of depression and self-perceived burden (effect = -0.202; SE = 0.066; 95%CI: LL = -0.342, UL = -0.088).

Conclusions

Diversified interventions aimed at improving family function of T2DM patients would help in reducing the level of depression and self-perceived burden, and ultimately reducing loneliness.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Loneliness

Family function

Depression

Self-perceived burden

Serial multiple mediation effect

Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM), characterized by insulin resistance with (or without) islet β-cell dysfunction, is a lifelong lifestyle condition caused by the interaction among various genetic and environmental factors [1]. T2DM has become a major disease endangering the human health worldwide. According to the 10th edition of the IDF Diabetes Atlas, approximately 537 million adults (20–79 years old) worldwide have diabetes in 2021. This figure is estimated to increase to 643 million and 783 million by 2030 and 2045, respectively [2]. China, the country with the largest number of diabetes patients, reported 156 million people with diabetes in 2020. Of these, 90–95% had T2DM [3].

T2DM, an incurable chronic lifelong disease, gives rise to multiple complications and has a long treatment cycle. It not only endangers the physical health of patients, but also adversely affects their mental health. Some common psychological disorders that have been reported in T2DM patients include anxiety [4], depression [4, 5], diabetes-related distress [5–7], fear of hypoglycemia [7, 8], and loneliness, which has been reported recently [9]. Loneliness is a subjective psychological experience caused by the gap between an individual’s desire for communication and actual communication [10]. It is a distressed feeling, which arises when a person’s social needs do not meet the quantity or quality of their social relations [11]. Loneliness is a common affliction in European countries. Approximately 30 million adults in Europe have reported to have experienced loneliness. Approximately one-fifth of Britons [12] and one-third of Americans [13] reported to have experienced loneliness.

At present, the research on loneliness mostly focuses on the elderly [14], adolescents [15], and other normal population. A small number of studies have focused on patients with cancer [16], schizophrenia [17], stroke [18], and other acute and critical conditions. Recent studies have shown that T2DM patients also face varying degrees of loneliness. Approximately 25–53% of patients have reported to suffer from moderate or above loneliness [19]. T2DM, as a chronic lifelong condition, aggravates the sense of alienation and increases the feeling of abandonment in the patients. Consequently, patients feel isolated, which produces a sense of loneliness [20]. Loneliness also increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, the main cause of death in DM patients [21]. Therefore, severe long-term loneliness increases the risk of death in T2DM patients. In severely lonely people with T2DM, the risk of death may increase by 22–26% compared to that in the normal population [22]. Hence, T2DM may result into loneliness, which adversely affects both the physical and mental health of patients. Therefore, it is highly important to pay attention to and attempt to reduce loneliness in T2DM patients in order to control their condition and improve their physical and mental health.

A growing body of research has been reporting on the protective factors that delay or reduce loneliness. Notably, family function, a concept that reflects the characteristics related to family relations, family intimacy, and adaptability, is being advocated as a protective factor against loneliness. Kim and Baik [23] have stated that the worse the family function, the higher the loneliness level of the elderly. Pan et al [24] studied loneliness in undergraduates and secondary vocational school students independently and reported that their family function is related to loneliness. Johnson et al [25] indicated that a warm harmonious family environment or a strong family cohesion can reduce the risk of loneliness. However, the current research on the association of loneliness with family function mostly focuses on the normal population. In addition, no direct study has been conducted on the relationship between the above two factors in T2DM population. Despite this, some studies have reported that good family function can help TDM patients in regulating their blood glucose fluctuations, strengthening their psychological elasticity, and inhibiting the development of negative emotions such as anxiety and depression [26]. These studies reasonably predicts that a correlation exists between family function and loneliness in T2DM patients. Good family function can help adjust the psychological state of T2DM patients and reduce the degree of loneliness.

Although several articles have proved that good family function has a protective effect on loneliness, the specific path of family function affecting loneliness and the mechanism through which family function affects loneliness in T2DM patients need to be further studied. Existing studies have shown that depression induces loneliness [27]. A significant positive correlation between depression and loneliness in the elderly population has been reported. In addition, depression adversely affects the quality of life of the elderly by partially affecting loneliness [28]. A longitudinal study conducted by Zhou et al. [29] demonstrated that low self-esteem affected depression in adolescents, partly through the mediating effect of loneliness. Good family function can effectively reduce the occurrence or level of depression in postpartum women [30, 31], the elderly [32], and epileptic children [33]. Some studies have also reported that in T2DM patients, good family function can enhance the psychological elasticity of patients, inhibit the generation of negative emotions such as anxiety and depression symptoms, and help regulate the blood glucose fluctuations [26]. Considering the above relationship among family function, depression, and loneliness, we herein aim to verify whether depression has a mediating effect between family function and loneliness in the T2DM population.

Self-perceived burden refers to the patient’s guilt of using the help of a caregiver for daily life activities and the resulting frustration about oneself [34]. McPherson et al. [35] defined self-perceived burden as the physical and psychological burden on caregivers caused by sick individuals’ worry about their own illness and the need to be cared for, which eventually gives rise to a series of negative emotions in patients. A small number of studies have shown that self-perceived burden can affect loneliness. For example, Hill and Frost [36] conducted an investigation of ovarian cancer patients and found that self-perceived burden has an indirect impact on the psychological distress of loneliness. In addition, a survey of adolescents with neurofibromatosis type 1 reported that depression, self-perceived burden, and low levels of social support are predictors of loneliness [27]. Self-perceived burden is common in T2DM patients. Yu et al. [37] investigated 215 patients with diabetes and observed that the self-perceived burden of T2DM patients was at a mild-to-moderate level. A study on patients with diabetic foot showed that 88% of the patients had different degrees of self-perceived burden; the higher the severity of the disease, the heavier the self-perceived burden [38]. The following factors influence the self-perceived burden in T2DM patients: general demographic factors, disease course [39], disease severity factors [40], psychological factors [41], and social support level factors [42]. Although not confirmed in the T2DM population, depressive symptoms are a significant predictor of self-perceived burden in patients with chronic pain [43]. Good family function can significantly reduce the level of self-perceived burden in patients suffering from maintenance hemodialysis [44] and post-breast cancer surgery [45] and in elderly patients with coronary stent implantation [46]. To sum up, we hypothesized that in T2DM population, depression may affect self-perceived burden, which may be a potential mediator between family function and loneliness.

From the above discussion, we can see that the family function, depression, self-perceived burden, and loneliness might be related. The current study examines the series multiple mediating effects of depression and self-perceived burden between family function and loneliness in the T2DM population of China. For this purpose, we propound the following assumptions. Firstly, there is a possible correlation between family function and loneliness in the T2DM patients of China. Secondly, depression and self-perceived burden may mediate this relation between family function and loneliness, respectively. Finally, depression and self-perceived burden may play a series of mediating roles between family function and loneliness.

2.1 Data source and sample

Convenience sampling was adopted to recruit patients with T2DM. All the participants were recruited from two tertiary hospitals (Yangzhou city, Jiangsu Province, China) from February 2021 to June 2021. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) those diagnosed with T2DM for at least 1 year; (2) ≥ 18 years of age; (3) had good communication and verbal skills; and (4) were willing to participate in the study. The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) patients with acute complications; (2) those with limited vision because of complications or comorbidities; (3) those with severe comorbid psychiatric disorders; or (4) those who did not have the ability to read and write in Chinese. The survey included demographic characteristics, family function, depression, self-perceived burden, and loneliness.

According to the Kendall sample estimation method, the sample size for multivariate analysis was 5–10 times the variables of the study. Considering the maximum multiple and 15% invalid questionnaire, our sample size can be calculated as follows: number of independent variables×10×(1 + 15%). A total of 275 questionnaires were distributed among the participants, and 260 valid questionnaires were recovered, with a valid recovery rate of 94.50%, which met the survey requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from patients, who were then instructed to complete the questionnaire independently and anonymously. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Yangzhou University (YZUHL20210087), China.

2.2 Measurement tools

2.2.1 General information questionnaire

The data were collected using a self-designed questionnaire. The following information were collected: age, sex, diabetes symptoms, duration of diabetes, family history, complications (retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy, foot ulcers, and cardiovascular complications), marital status, residence status, and the most recent glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.

2.2.2 Family function

The Family APGAR scale, designed by Smilkstein, was used to assess the family function. It includes five items: adaptation, partnership, growth, affection, and resolution [47]. Each item is scored on a 3-point Likert scale: 0 (almost never), 1 (some of the time), and 2 (almost always). The total score can have values ranging from 0 to 10. The higher the score, the better the family function. The total score is divided into three levels from 0 to 10: 0–3 indicates severe family dysfunction, 4–6 indicates moderate family dysfunction, and 7–10 indicates good family function. The APGAR scale is widely used as it has good reliability and validity. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the family function was 0.853.

2.2.3 Depression

The Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) was developed by Zung in 1965. It is used to evaluate the severity of the depressive state of study participants during the past week [48]. The SDS consists of 20 items, each of which is scored on a four-point Likert scale (1, no or seldom; 2, sometimes; 3, most of the time; 4, most or all of the time). Of these 20 items, 10 express negative experiences or symptoms and are scored positively, while the other 10 express positive experiences and are scored negatively. The total score is calculated by adding the initial score of the 20 items and multiplying them by 1.25. Patients are classified according to their total score on the SDS as follows: normal (total score: <50), mild depression (total score: between 50 and 59), moderate depression (total score: between 60 and 69), and severe depression (total score: ≥70). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the SDS was 0.862 [49].

2.2.4 Self-perceived burden

The Self-Perceived Burden Scale (SPBS), developed by Cousineau et al. [34], consists of 10 items covering three dimensions: body burden, economic burden, and emotional burden. The SPBS score uses a five-point Likert scale, from “never” (1 point) to “always” (5 points). The total score is the sum of individual items (only the eighth item was reverse scored; all the others were positive). The SPBS score is classified into the following four groups: <20, not significant; 20–29, mild; 30–39, moderate; and ≥ 40, severe self‐perceived burden. The higher the total score, the higher the individual’s SPB level. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for SBP was 0.844.

2.2.5 Loneliness

The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3), developed by Russel et al. [50], is used to assess participants’ level of loneliness. The scale consists of 20 items on a four-point scale ranging from “never felt this way” to “always felt this way,” with a total score of 20–80. The higher the score is, the higher the loneliness degree is. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the UCLA was 0.887 [51].

2.3 Statistical analysis

The SPSS 26.0 software was used for data analysis. Measurements that conform to a normal distribution were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, and those that do not were expressed as the median and quartile spacing, M (QR). Pearson correlation analysis was used for variables conforming to normal distribution, while Spearman rank correlation analysis was used for those not conforming to normal distribution. P < 0.05 indicated statistical difference. Process 3.3 was used to analyze the mediating effect of the data. The Bootstrap sample number was set to 2000, and a 95% confidence interval was set. If the upper and lower limits did not include 0, it was statistically significant.

3.1 Characteristics Of Samples

The socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are displayed in Table 1. A total of 260 patients with T2DM were recruited for this study, including 145 men (55.8%) and 115 women (44.2%), with an average age of (59.35 ± 14.20) years. The married population accounted for 90.0% of the total population. The majority of participants had personal monthly incomes in the ¥2000–4999 range (n = 156, 60.0%). Among the patients, 145 (55.8%) had a ≤ 10 years history of diabetes, while 115 (44.2%) had a > 10 years history. In addition, 63.5% of the patients had comorbidities.

Table 1

The characteristics of samples (N = 260)
Variables	Category	Number	Percentage (%)
Gender
	Male	145	55.8
	Female	115	44.2
Age
	18 ~ 44	38	14.6
	45 ~ 59	81	31.2
	≥ 60	141	54.2
Marriage
	Married	234	90.0
	Unmarried	12	4.6
	Divorced or widowed	14	5.4
Income (Yuan/month)
	0 ~ 1999	19	7.3
	2000 ~ 4999	156	60.0
	5000 ~ 9999	62	23.9
	≥ 10000	23	8.8
Duration of diabetes(year)
	≤ 10	145	55.8
	＞10	115	44.2
Family History
	Yes	73	28.1
	No	187	71.9
Complications
	0	95	36.5
	1 ~ 2	117	45.0
	3 ~ 6	39	15.0
	≥ 7	9	3.5
BMI
	＜18.5	6	2.3
	18.5 ~ 23.9	109	41.9
	≥ 24	145	55.8
Smoking
	Yes	95	36.5
	No	165	63.5
Drinking
	Yes	84	32.3
	No	176	67.7
Family Environment
	Good	115	44.2
	General	135	51.9
	Bad	10	3.9
Fasting blood glucose
(mmol/L)	3.9 ~ 6.1	45	17.3
	＞6.1	215	82.7
HbA1c(%)
	＜7	25	9.6
	≥ 7	235	90.4
Note: BMI, Body mass index;HbA1c, Hemoglobin A1C.

3.2 Descriptive Statistics For Loneliness, Depression, Self-perceived Burden, And Family Function

Table 2 and Fig. 1 show the score of different scales. The average UCLA loneliness scale score was 41.76 ± 11.75, with a minimum of 20 points and a maximum of 74 points. The average SDS score was 50.39 ± 11.92. It was ≥ 50 for 105 (40.3%) patients, who were classified as having depressive symptoms. The average score of SPBS was 22.93 ± 9.36, and the overall average was at the level of mild self-perceived burden. The APGAR mean score was 7.20 ± 2.65.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for variables.
Measure	Minimum	Maximum	Mean (SD)
UCLA-LS	20	74	41.76 (11.75)
SDS	29	81	50.39 (11.92)
SPBS	10	50	22.93 (9.36)
APGAR	0	10	7.20 (2.65)
Note: SD, Standard Deviation.

3.3 Correlation Of Depression, Self-perceived Burden, Family Function And Loneliness

Table 3 lists the correlations among research variables with statistical differences of all analysis results (P < 0.01 (two-tailed)). Firstly, a significant negative relationship was noted between family function and loneliness, with a correlation coefficient of -0.609. Secondly, depression and self-perceived burden were positively correlated with loneliness (r = 0.642 and r = 0.588, respectively). Depression is also positively correlation with self-perceived burden (r = 0.574). Finally, family function was significantly negatively correlated with both depression and self-perceived burden (r = -0.467 and r = -0.543, respectively).

Table 3

Correlations between depression, self-perceived burden, family function and loneliness.
	SDS	SPBS	APGAR	Loneliness
SDS	1
SPBS	0.574**	1
APGAR	-0.467**	-0.543**	1
Loneliness	0.642**	0.588**	-0.609**	1
Note: **P < 0.01 (two-tailed).

3.4 Mediation Analysis Of Depression And Self-perceived Burden Between Family Function And Loneliness

The results of relationship between family function and loneliness are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 2, respectively. Firstly, family function exerts a negatively significant influence on loneliness in T2DM patients (P < 0.001); the higher the level of family function was, the lower the level of loneliness was. In addition, all the three indirect paths were also significant. The first indirect way was that the effect of family function on loneliness was independently mediated by depression, with an effect value of 0.862. The second indirect way was that self-perceived burden significantly mediated the effect of family function on loneliness, with an affect value of 0.288. Finally, the indirect effect of family function on loneliness was also found to be significant through the chain mediating role of depression and self- perceived burden, and its effect value was 0.202. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) of these three indirect paths did not contain zero, indicating that the mediating effect of the three paths was significant.

Table 4

Hypothesized serial mediation model of depression and self-perceived burden between family function and loneliness.
Pathway	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect	-2.809	0.213	-3.228	-2.390
Direct effect	-1.457	0.225	-1.901	-1.013
a1	-2.360	0.237	-2.828	-1.892
a2	-1.143	0.193	-1.523	-0.762
b1	0.365	0.052	0.262	0.469
b2	0.252	0.068	0.118	0.387
d	0.340	0.043	0.256	0.425
Indirect effects
Total indirect effect	-1.353	0.190	-1.742	-1.005
Indirect 1	-0.862	0.165	-1.202	-0.567
Indirect 2	-0.288	0.107	-0.525	-0.114
Indirect 3	-0.202	0.066	-0.342	− .088
Note: SE, Standard error; Boot LLCI, boot lower limit confidence interval; Boot ULCI, boot upper limit confidence interval;a1, family function → depression; a2, family function → self-perceived burden; b1, depression → loneliness; b2, self-perceived burden → loneliness; d, depression → self-perceived burden; indirect 1, family function → depression → loneliness; indirect 2, family function → self-perceived burden → loneliness; indirect 3, family function → depression → self-perceived burden → loneliness

We mainly tested whether depression and self-perceived burden regulated the relevance between family function and loneliness in T2DM patients. The results showed that, firstly, family function could directly and significantly affect the loneliness in T2DM patients. Secondly, depression and self-perceived burden partially mediated family function and loneliness. Thirdly, depression and self-perceived burden have a chain mediating effect. Hence, we were able to confirm the hypothesized relationships that we proposed for family function, depression, self-perceived burden, and loneliness.

4.1 Direct influence of family function on loneliness

Our study results showed that family function can directly affect loneliness in T2DM patients; the higher the level of family function, the lower the loneliness patients felt. The degree of time and space shared between patients and their family members best determines the level of loneliness in patients. Family function is a direct predict factor of loneliness. Disorganized family management or lack of intimate contact between family members causes loneliness among patients [52]. Some studies have also shown that family function is significantly negatively correlated with social loneliness in the normal population, with higher levels of family closeness and adjustment being associated with greater affection and love and lesser social isolation [53]. Patients with T2DM tend to have a higher dependence on their families. Therefore, it is necessary for them to have good family function to help them build an effective psychological barrier to protect them against external stimulus sources that cause mood swings and negative emotions. Therefore, the role of family function in causing loneliness in T2DM patients should not be ignored. Patients should be encouraged to actively express their needs and emotional experiences to their family members, who, in turn, should be advised to provide emotional comfort and timely support to patients to avoid and/or reduce their loneliness [54].

4.2 Mediation effect of depression and self-perceived burden

We also explored the underlying mechanisms of family function and loneliness in patients with T2DM. This study demonstrates that the indirect association between family function and loneliness can be independently mediated by depression or self-perceived burden in T2DM patients.

This study showed that depression plays a mediating role between family function and loneliness. The relation between depression and loneliness has been well documented [55–57]. Cacioppo et al. [58] demonstrated a strong association between depression and loneliness in older adults. In addition, depressive symptoms and loneliness can cooperate with each other to reduce the happiness degree of the elderly. A longitudinal study lasting five years in older adults of Chicago showed that loneliness indicates a subsequent increase in depression [59]. An increase in depressive symptoms can predict loneliness [60]. As most patients with T2DM choose home for follow-up treatments, family dysfunction may alienate them and their family members. The probability of negative emotions such as depression and anxiety greatly increase in patients in a long-term, closed, and depressing living environment [61]. These negative emotions can cause patients to avoid social interaction, which reduces their social skills over time and further decreases the frequency or quality of their social activities, thereby increasing loneliness [62]. Long-term negative psychology can break down the psychological defenses of a patient. Our study demonstrated that depression independently mediates the influence of family function on loneliness in T2DM population. Therefore, diversified interventions should be used to improve the level of family function or reduce the depression, so as to reduce loneliness.

This study showed that self-perceived burden mediates the influence of family function on loneliness in T2DM population. We also showed that good family function reduces the level of self-perceived burden. Similar results were reported by Kuo et al. [63], who investigated the role of family in cancer patients. Moreover, Li et al. [64], using a model of care, demonstrated that the family members of lung cancer patients had a lower self-perceived burden. In addition, McPherson et al. [65] found that care from a partner is closely related to the self-perceived burden of stroke patients and may affect the quality of life of patients. Hence, family function plays an important role in influencing the self-perceived burden in T2DM patients. Support received from family members might reduce patients’ stress, improve their confidence, and reduce the self-perceived burden. Our results also suggest that self-perceived burden can impact loneliness. Ejerskov et al [27] and Hill and Frost [36] reported that self-perceived burden could indirectly affect the patients’ feelings of loneliness. Our findings revealed the independent mediating role of self-perceived burden in the association of family function and loneliness in T2DM patients, which suggests that targeted measures to improve family function or reduce self-perceived burden can be effective in reducing levels of loneliness.

4.3 Chain mediating effect of depression and self-perceived burden in the relationship between family function and loneliness

In addition to examining the independent mediating role of depression and self-perceived burden, our study also tested a potential chain mediating role between family function and loneliness. Our findings suggest the accumulative mediating role of depression and self-perceived burden in the family function and loneliness. Many previous studies have shown that good family function can help improve the mental health of patients with T2DM [30, 31]. Good family function can enhance the psychological elasticity of patients and inhibit the generation of negative emotions, and hence, reduce their depression. In addition, the reduction in depression also helps in decreasing the self-perceived burden in patients with diabetes [66]. Finally, self-perceived burden is positively related to loneliness [36]. Patients who had a higher level of self-perceived burden tended to have greater loneliness. Our findings suggested that more attention should be paid to T2DM patients with loneliness. Interventions aimed at strengthening the family function and reducing the level of depression and self-perceived burden should be adopted by medical personnel.

Our study has a few shortcomings. First, the participants were taken from only two large general hospitals in China. This group may not be sufficient to represent the larger patient population with T2DM, which limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the cross-sectional study cannot explain the causal relationship between the different variables. Hence, future longitudinal studies need to be designed to further explore the dynamic effects of depression, self-perceived burden, and family function on loneliness.

Family function can not only have a direct negative impact on loneliness in patients with T2DM, but also have an indirect impact on loneliness through the independent mediating role of depression and self-perceived burden and the chain mediating role of depression and self-perceived burden. Diversified interventions aimed at improving family function of T2DM patients would help in reducing the level of depression and self-perceived burden, and ultimately reducing loneliness.

HbA1c, hemoglobin; T2DM, diabetes mellitus type 2; SDS, Self-Rating Depression Scale; SPBS, Self‐Perceived Burden Scale

Acknowledges

We would like to thank the participants for their contributions to this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

Yu Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft; Xiangning Li: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing- Reviewing and Editing; Yaxin Bi: Investigation, Formal analysis; Yinshi Kan：Resources, Investigation; Hongyuan Liu：Resources, Investigation; Lin Liu: Resources, Formal analysis; Yan Zou: Resources, Formal analysis; Ning Zhang: Resources, Investigation; Li Fang: Resources, Investigation; Weijuan Gong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82100870)

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials used in this study are available from the corresponding authors and will be made available on reasonable request.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The whole study was conducted in strict compliance with the American Psychological Association Ethical Standards and the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). All participants signed a written informed consent form. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Yangzhou University (YZUHL20210087),

American Diabetes Association. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(Suppl 1):15–33.
(International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas 10th edition. 2021. https://www.idf.org/news/94. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Li Y, Teng D, Shi X, Qin G, Qin Y, Quan H, et al. Prevalence of diabetes recorded in mainland China using 2018 diagnostic criteria from the American Diabetes Association: national cross sectional study. BMJ. 2020;369:m997.
Ásbjörnsdóttir B, Vestgaard M, Do NC, Ringholm L, Andersen LLT, Jensen DM, et al. Prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes and the impact on glycaemic control. Diabet Med J Br Diabet Assoc. 2021;38:e14506.
Stuart MJ, Baune BT. Depression and type 2 diabetes: inflammatory mechanisms of a psychoneuroendocrine co-morbidity. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:658–76.
Lapin BR, Pantalone KM, Milinovich A, Morrison S, Schuster A, Boulos F, et al. Pain in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes-Related Polyneuropathy Is Associated With Vascular Events and Mortality. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105:dgaa394.
Li S, Fang L, Lee A, Hayter M, Zhang L, Bi Y, et al. The association between diabetes-related distress and fear of hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Nurs Open. 2021;8:1668–77.
Grammes J, Schäfer M, Benecke A, Löw U, Klostermann A-L, Kubiak T, et al. Fear of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: The role of interoceptive accuracy and prior episodes of hypoglycemia. J Psychosom Res. 2018;105:58–63.
Hackett RA, Hudson JL, Chilcot J. Loneliness and type 2 diabetes incidence: findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Diabetologia. 2020;63:2329–38.
Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, Goossens L, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci. 2015;10:238–49.
PINQUART M, SÖRENSEN S. Influences on loneliness in older adults: A meta-analysis. Influ Loneliness Older Adults Meta-Anal. 2001;23:245–66.
Victor CR, Yang K. The prevalence of loneliness among adults: a case study of the United Kingdom. J Psychol. 2012;146:85–104.
Gerst-Emerson K, Jayawardhana J. Loneliness as a public health issue: the impact of loneliness on health care utilization among older adults. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:1013–9.
Ma X, Chen C. Surveying The Status of Mental Frailty and Aloneness of The Advanced Ages. Chin Health Serv Manag. 2020;37:138–40.
Ren Y, Li M, Sun H. A Meta-analysis of loneliness among left-behind children in rural China. Chin Ment Health J. 2020;34:841–6.
Lin Y, Jiang Q, Yang X, Wu M. Cognition and inducing factors of loneliness in cancer patients. J Nurses Train. 2017;32:1689–91.
Meng H. Current status and correlation of loneliness and stigma in patients with schizophrenia during remission. Nurs Pract Res. 2020;17:143–5.
Dong S, Liu X, Niu A, Zhang X, Tian Y, Li J, et al. Status of emotional-social loneliness in patients with acute cerebral infarction and the related factors analysis. Chin J Geriatr. 2019;38:383–7.
Wardian J, Sun F. Factors associated with diabetes-related distress: implications for diabetes self-management. Soc Work Health Care. 2014;53:364–81.
Christiansen J, Lund R, Qualter P, Andersen CM, Pedersen SS, Lasgaard M, Loneliness. Social Isolation, and Chronic Disease Outcomes. Ann Behav Med Publ Soc Behav Med. 2021;55:203–15.
An Y, Zhang P, Wang J, Gong Q, Gregg EW, Yang W, et al. Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality Over a 23-Year Period Among Chinese With Newly Diagnosed Diabetes in the Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:1365–71.
Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart Br Card Soc. 2016;102:1009–16.
Kim O-S, Baik S-H. The relationships among loneliness, social support, and family function in elderly Korean. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2003;33:425–32.
P Y, Family Function HXYZZZ. Loneliness, Emotion Regulation, and Hope in Secondary Vocational School Students: A Moderated Mediation Model.Front Public Health. 2021;9.
Johnson HD, Lavoie JC, Mahoney M. Interparental Conflict and Family Cohesion: Predictors of Loneliness, Social Anxiety, and Social Avoidance in Late Adolescence. J Adolesc Res. 2001;16:304–18.
Dang Q, Bai R, Zhang B, Lin Y. Family functioning and negative emotions in older adults: the mediating role of self-integrity and the moderating role of self-stereotyping. Aging Ment Health. 2021;25:2124–31.
Ejerskov C, Lasgaard M, Østergaard JR. Teenagers and young adults with neurofibromatosis type 1 are more likely to experience loneliness than siblings without the illness. Acta Paediatr Oslo Nor 1992. 2015;104:604–9.
Zafar J, Malik NI, Atta M, Makhdoom IF, Ullah I, Manzar MD. Loneliness may mediate the relationship between depression and the quality of life among elderly with mild cognitive impairment. Psychogeriatr Off J Jpn Psychogeriatr Soc. 2021;21:805–12.
Zhou J, Li X, Tian L, Huebner ES. Longitudinal association between low self-esteem and depression in early adolescents: The role of rejection sensitivity and loneliness. Psychol Psychother. 2020;93:54–71.
Çankaya S, Alan Dikmen H. The effects of family function, relationship satisfaction, and dyadic adjustment on postpartum depression. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.13081.
Guan Z, Wang Y, Hu X, Chen J, Qin C, Tang S, et al. Postpartum depression and family function in Chinese women within 1 year after childbirth: A cross-sectional study. Res Nurs Health. 2021;44:633–42.
Lu C, Yuan L, Lin W, Zhou Y, Pan S. Depression and resilience mediates the effect of family function on quality of life of the elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;71:34–42.
Zhang M, Zhang H, Hu S, Zhang M, Fang Y, Hu J, et al. Investigation of Anxiety, Depression, Sleep, and Family Function in Caregivers of Children With Epilepsy. Front Neurol. 2021;12:744017.
Cousineau N, McDowell I, Hotz S, Hébert P. Measuring chronic patients’ feelings of being a burden to their caregivers: development and preliminary validation of a scale. Med Care. 2003;41:110–8.
McPherson CJ, Wilson KG, Murray MA. Feeling like a burden: exploring the perspectives of patients at the end of life. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2007;64:417–27.
Hill EM, Frost A. Loneliness and Psychological Distress in Women Diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer: Examining the Role of Self-Perceived Burden, Social Support Seeking, and Social Network Diversity. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2022;29:195–205.
Yu R, Li H. Investigation of self-perceived burden in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Chongqing Med. 2016;45:1670–2.
Liu Y, He H, Zhang X. Study on status quo and influencing factors of self-perceived burden(SPB)in patients with middle-and-high risk of diabetic foot. Chin Nurs Res. 2015;29:3492–5.
Hu Y, Yan M. Investigation and analysis on self-perceived bueden of elderly patients with coronary heart disease. J Nurs Adm. 2013;13:862–4.
Song G, Liu Y. Investigation of self-perceived burden o felderly patients with chronic diseases under different care-qiver conditions. Chin Nurs Manag. 2012;12:73–5.
Yan M, Wang L, Liao S. Analysis of self-perceived burden level and its influencing factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Community Med. 2018;16:1311–4.
Luo Y. Correlation analysis of social support and coping style in hemodialysis patients. Guide China Med. 2018;16:112–3.
Kowal J, Wilson KG, McWilliams LA, Péloquin K, Duong D. Self-perceived burden in chronic pain: relevance, prevalence, and predictors. Pain. 2012;153:1735–41.
Jiang J, Cai H, Lin W. Effect of family function on self-perceived burden of maintenance hemodialysis patients. Chin J Integr Tradit West Nephrol. 2014;15:517–9.
Zhao Y, Cheng X, Xu Y, Zhu F. Effects of coping style and psychological consistency on the self-feeling burden in breast cancer patients. Chin J Mod Nurs. 2018;24:3124–9.
Li M, Zhu H, Chen L, Zhu Y, Wang J. Self-Perceived Burden and Its Influenceing Factors in Elderly Patients after Coronary Stent Implantation. J Nanchang Univ Sci. 2017;57:86–91.
Bellón Saameño JA, Delgado Sánchez A. Luna del Castillo JD, Lardelli Claret P. Validity and reliability of the family Apgar family function test. Aten Primaria. 1996;18:289–96.
Zung WW, A SELF-RATING DEPRESSION. SCALE Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12:63–70.
Tan M, Chen M, Li J, He X, Jiang Z, Tan H, et al. Depressive symptoms and associated factors among left-behind children in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:1059.
Russell D, Peplau LA, Cutrona CE. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:472–80.
Wang D. Reliability and validity of the Russell Loneliness Scale.Chin J Clin Psychol. 1995;:23–5.
Xin Z, Chi L. The relationship between family functioning and childrens loneliness:The role of mediator.Acta Psychol Sin. 2003;:216–21.
Deng L, Zheng R. Relationships among Family Functioning,Emotional Expression and Loneliness in Colleges Students. Stud OPsychology Behav. 2013;11:223–8.
Cheng Y, Zhang W, Xue T, Yu C, Sun L. Correlation between emotional social loneliness and family function in disabled elderly in rural area. Mod Prev Med. 2021;48:3332–6.
Domènech-Abella J, Lara E, Rubio-Valera M, Olaya B, Moneta MV, Rico-Uribe LA, et al. Loneliness and depression in the elderly: the role of social network. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52:381–90.
Donovan NJ, Wu Q, Rentz DM, Sperling RA, Marshall GA, Glymour MM. Loneliness, depression and cognitive function in older U.S. adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32:564–73.
Zhao X, Zhang D, Wu M, Yang Y, Xie H, Li Y, et al. Loneliness and depression symptoms among the elderly in nursing homes: A moderated mediation model of resilience and social support. Psychiatry Res. 2018;268:143–51.
Cacioppo JT, Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Thisted RA. Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychol Aging. 2006;21:140–51.
Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Thisted RA. Perceived social isolation makes me sad: 5-year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Psychol Aging. 2010;25:453–63.
Dahlberg L, Andersson L, McKee KJ, Lennartsson C. Predictors of loneliness among older women and men in Sweden: A national longitudinal study. Aging Ment Health. 2015;19:409–17.
Zhao R, Xu B, Li Y, Yu T, Ye F. Correlation Analysis between Depression and Family Functioning in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J Qilu Nurs. 2017;23:17–20.
McHugh Power J, Tang J, Kenny RA, Lawlor BA, Kee F. Mediating the relationship between loneliness and cognitive function: the role of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Aging Ment Health. 2020;24:1071–8.
Kuo S-C, Chou W-C, Hou M-M, Wu C-E, Shen W-C, Wen F-H, et al. Changes in and modifiable patient- and family caregiver-related factors associated with cancer patients’ high self-perceived burden to others at the end of life: A longitudinal study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27:e12942.
Li L, Xu F, Ye J. Effect of Family Participatory Nursing Model Based on WeChat Platform on Psychological Elasticity and Quality of Life of Patients with Lung Cancer. BioMed Res Int. 2022;2022:4704107.
McPherson CJ, Wilson KG, Chyurlia L, Leclerc C. The balance of give and take in caregiver-partner relationships: An examination of self-perceived burden, relationship equity, and quality of life from the perspective of care recipients following stroke. Rehabil Psychol. 2010;55:194–203.
Mayberry LS, Egede LE, Wagner JA, Osborn CY. Stress, depression and medication nonadherence in diabetes: test of the exacerbating and buffering effects of family support. J Behav Med. 2015;38:363–71.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 30 Aug, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Psychiatry →

Editorial decision: Major revision
18 Jun, 2023
Reviews received at journal
05 Jun, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 May, 2023
Reviews received at journal
31 Mar, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Mar, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
22 Feb, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
21 Feb, 2023
Editor invited by journal
21 Feb, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Feb, 2023
First submitted to journal
10 Feb, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effects of family function, depression, and self-perceived burden on loneliness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A serial multiple mediation model

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Methods And Measurements

2.1 Data source and sample

2.2 Measurement tools

2.2.1 General information questionnaire

2.2.2 Family function

2.2.3 Depression

2.2.4 Self-perceived burden

2.2.5 Loneliness

2.3 Statistical analysis

3 Results

3.1 Characteristics Of Samples

3.2 Descriptive Statistics For Loneliness, Depression, Self-perceived Burden, And Family Function

3.3 Correlation Of Depression, Self-perceived Burden, Family Function And Loneliness

3.4 Mediation Analysis Of Depression And Self-perceived Burden Between Family Function And Loneliness

4 Discussion

4.1 Direct influence of family function on loneliness

4.2 Mediation effect of depression and self-perceived burden

4.3 Chain mediating effect of depression and self-perceived burden in the relationship between family function and loneliness

5. Limitations

6. Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1