The purpose of the study was to determine, through secondary analysis, whether the length of a couple’s relationship and the participants’ gender are associated with glycemic response to a type 2 diabetes (T2D) behavioral couples-based intervention.
Methods
A randomized trial was conducted to test the impact of a couples-level, telephone-based behavioral intervention on hemoglobin A1C in patients with T2D. One hundred and four patients and partners participated in the couples intervention arm, and 94 individuals participated in the individual arm. A1C levels were measured at baseline and 1-year follow-up.
Results
Results of the regression analysis showed that for men with T2D (n = 35) in the couples intervention group, longer length of relationship was associated with lower A1C at 1-year follow-up, after controlling for baseline A1C, diabetes duration, and income. Length of relationship was not significantly related to follow-up glycemic measures for women or men with T2D in the individual intervention.
Conclusions
Study findings suggests that for men with T2D in a couples-based intervention, those in longer relationships may be more likely to benefit from the intervention. More research is needed to better understand factors that contribute to successful couples-based behavioral approaches to help adults with T2D improve their glycemic control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837-853.
2.
YangWDallTMHalderP. The American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):1033-1046.
3.
CasagrandeSSFradkinJESaydahSHRustKFCowieCC.The prevalence of meeting A1c, blood pressure, and LDL goals among people with diabetes, 1988-2010. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(8):2271-2279.
4.
BanduraAWaltersRH.Social Learning Theory and Personality Development. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
5.
KelleyHHThibautTW.Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
6.
TriefPMHimesCIOrendorffRWeinstockRS.The marital relationship and psychosocial adaptation and glycemic control of individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care2001;24(8):1384-1389.
7.
FisherLWiehsKL.Can addressing family relationships improve outcomes in chronic disease? Report of the National Working Group on Family-based Interventions in Chronic Disease. J Fam Practice. 2000;49(6):561-566.
8.
KeoghKMSmithSMWhiteP. Psychological family intervention for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Am J Managed Care. 2011;17(2):105-113.
9.
RoblesTF.Marital quality and health: implications for marriage in the 21st century. Curr Dir Psychol. 2014;23(6):427-432.
10.
SeidelAJFranksMMStephensMAPRookKS.Spouse control and type 2 diabetes management: moderating effects of dyadic expectations for spouse involvement. Fam Relat. 2012;61(4):698-709.
11.
FranksMMSahinZSSeidelAJ. Table for two: diabetes distress and diet-related interactions of married patients with diabetes and their spouses. Fam Syst Health2012;30(2):154.
12.
WhismanMALiASbarraDARaisonCL.Marital quality and diabetes: results from the Health and Retirement Study. Health Psychol. 2014;33(8):832-840.
13.
TriefPMPloutz-SnyderRBrittonKDWeinstockRS.The relationship between marital quality and adherence to the diabetes care regimen. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(3):148-154.
14.
TriefPMFisherLSandbergJG. Health and psychosocial outcomes of a telephonic couples behavior change intervention in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(12):2165-2173.
15.
LandisMPeter-WightMMartinMBodenmannG.Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-term marriage. GeroPsych. 2013;26(1):39-47.
16.
LevensonRWCarstensenLLGottmanJM.The influence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: a study of long-term marriages. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(1):56-68.
17.
PasupathiMCarstensenLLLevensonRWGottmanJM.Responsive listening in long-married couples: a psycholinguistic perspective. J Nonverbal Behav. 1999;23(2):173-193.
18.
IidaMStephensMAPRookKSFranksMMSalemJK.When the going gets tough, does support get going? Determinants of spousal support provision to type 2 diabetic patients. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010;36(6):780-791.
19.
SandbergJGTriefPMGreenbergRPGraffKWeinstockRS.“He said, she said”: the impact of gender on spousal support in diabetes management. J Couple Relatsh Ther. 2006;5(2):23-42.
20.
FranksMMLucasTStephensMAPRookKSGonzalezR.Diabetes distress and depressive symptoms: a dyadic investigation of older patients and their spouses. Fam Rel. 2010;59(5):599-610.
21.
TriefPMSandbergJFisherL. Challenges and lessons learned in the development and implementation of a couples-focused telephone intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes Support Project. Transl Behav Med2011;1(3):461-467.
22.
MartireLMLustigAPSchulzRMillerGEHelgesonVS.Is it beneficial to involve a family member? A meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for chronic illness. Health Psych. 2004; 23(6):599-611.
23.
KangCMChangSCChenPL. Comparison of family partnership intervention care vs. conventional care in adult patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in a community hospital: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1363-1373.
24.
MartireLMFranksMM.The role of social networks in adult health: introduction to the special issue. Health Psych. 2014;33(6):501-504.
25.
Kiecolt-GlaserJKNewtonTL.Marriage and health: his and hers. Psych Bull. 2001;127(4):472-503.
26.
ListerZFoxCWilsonCM.Couples and diabetes: a 30-year narrative review of dyadic relational research. Contemp Fam Ther. 2013;35(4):613-638.
27.
PadulaC.Older couples’ decision making on health issues. West J Nurs Res. 1996;18(6):675-687.
28.
HemphillRCStephensMAPRookKS. Older adults’ beliefs about the timeline of type 2 diabetes and adherence to dietary regimens. Pscyhol Health. 2013;28(2):139-153.
29.
FisherLGudmundsdottirMGillissC. Resolving disease management problems in European-American and Latino couples with type 2 diabetes: the effects of ethnicity and patient gender. Fam Process. 2000;39(4):403-416.
30.
ClarkCD.The lived experience of type 2 diabetes in married couples between the ages of 60 and 70. Diss Abstr Int. 2008;68:4619.
31.
HampsonSEGlasgowREFosterLS.Personal models of diabetes among older adults: relationship to self-management and other variables. Diabetes Educ. 1995;21(4):300-307.
32.
RohrbaughMJMehlMRShohamVReillyESEwyGA.Prognostic significance of spouse we talk in couples coping with heart failure. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(5):781-789.
33.
RentscherKERohrbaughMJShohamVMehlMR.Asymmetric partner pronoun use and demand-withdraw interaction in couples coping with health problems. J Fam Pscyhol. 2013;27(5):691-701.
34.
DonatoSPariseMIafrateR. Dyadic coping responses and partners’ perceptions for couple satisfaction: an actor-partner interdependence analysis. J Soc Pers Relat. 2015;32:580-600.
35.
LinWFChenLHLiTS.Are “we” good? A longitudinal study of we-talk and stress coping in dual-earner couples. J Happiness Stud. 2016;17:757-722.
