Resilience in chronic disease : the relationships among risk factors, protective factors, adaptive outcomes, and the level of resilience in adults with diabetes

Background: There are innumerable diabetes studies that have investigated associations between risk factors, protective factors, and health outcomes; however, these individual predictors are part of a complex network of interacting forces. Moreover, there is little awareness about resilience or its importance in chronic disease in adulthood, especially diabetes. Thus, this is the first study to: (1) extensively investigate the relationships among a host of predictors and multiple adaptive outcomes; and (2) conceptualise a resilience model among people with diabetes. Methods: This cross-sectional study was divided into two research studies. Study One was to translate two diabetes-specific instruments (Problem Areas In Diabetes, PAID; Diabetes Coping Measure, DCM) into a Chinese version and to examine their psychometric properties for use in Study Two in a convenience sample of 205 outpatients with type 2 diabetes. In Study Two, an integrated theoretical model is developed and evaluated using the structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 345 people with type 2 diabetes from the endocrine outpatient departments of three hospitals in Taiwan. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed a one-factor structure of the PAID-C which was similar to the original version of the PAID. Strong content validity of the PAID-C was demonstrated. The PAID-C was associated with HbA1c and diabetes self-care behaviours, confirming satisfactory criterion validity. There was a moderate relationship between the PAID-C and the Perceived Stress Scale, supporting satisfactory convergent validity. The PAID-C also demonstrated satisfactory stability and high internal consistency. A four-factor structure and strong content validity of the DCM-C was confirmed. Criterion validity demonstrated that the DCM-C was significantly associated with HbA1c and diabetes self-care behaviours. There was a statistical correlation between the DCM-C and the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist, suggesting satisfactory convergent validity. Test-retest reliability demonstrated satisfactory stability of the DCM-C. The total scale of the DCM-C showed adequate internal consistency. Age, duration of diabetes, diabetes symptoms, diabetes distress, physical activity, coping strategies, and social support were the most consistent factors associated with adaptive outcomes in adults with diabetes. Resilience was positively associated with coping strategies, social support, health-related quality of life, and diabetes self-care behaviours. Results of the structural equation modelling revealed protective factors had a significant direct effect on adaptive outcomes; however, the construct of risk factors was not significantly related to adaptive outcomes. Moreover, resilience can moderate the relationships among protective factors and adaptive outcomes, but there were no interaction effects of risk factors and resilience on adaptive outcomes. Conclusion: This study contributes to an understanding of how risk factors and protective factors work together to influence adaptive outcomes in blood sugar control, health-related quality of life, and diabetes self-care behaviours. Additionally, resilience is a positive personality characteristic and may be importantly involved in the adjustment process among people living with type 2 diabetes.