Julkarnain Julkarnain, Arham Arham, Bobi Supriadin

The relationship between anxiety levels and blood glucose levels in diabetes mellitus patients: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

The relationship between anxiety levels and blood glucose levels in diabetes mellitus patients: a cross-sectional study. Study the link between anxiety and blood glucose in diabetes patients. Higher anxiety correlates with poorer glycemic control (HbA1c). Integrated interventions can improve DM outcomes.

Abstract

Background: Anxiety is a common psychological complication among Diabetes Mellitus (DM) patients, influencing their glycemic control. Stress-related hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, elevated during anxiety episodes, can disrupt glucose metabolism, contributing to hyperglycemia. Purpose: This study investigates the relationship between anxiety levels and blood glucose control in DM patients at Labuang Baji Hospital, Makassar. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 130 DM patients selected through purposive sampling. Anxiety levels were assessed using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), while glycemic control was measured using HbA1c. Descriptive statistics summarized the demographic data, and Pearson correlation analysis evaluated the relationship between anxiety and blood glucose levels. Results: The sample comprised predominantly females (55.4%), with 42.3% aged between 31–50 years. The mean anxiety score was 24.5 (±8.6), while the mean HbA1c level was 8.2% (±1.4). A statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) was found between anxiety levels and HbA1c, indicating that higher anxiety corresponds with poorer glycemic control. Conclusion: The findings emphasize the significant influence of anxiety on blood glucose levels in DM patients. Addressing anxiety through integrated psychological and medical interventions could improve glycemic outcomes. Holistic DM management strategies should include anxiety reduction techniques to enhance overall health and reduce complications.

Review

This cross-sectional study effectively investigated the crucial relationship between anxiety levels and glycemic control in Diabetes Mellitus (DM) patients, addressing a common and clinically significant psychological complication. The research clearly articulates its purpose and employs established, reliable measures—the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) for anxiety and HbA1c for glycemic control. The finding of a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) between higher anxiety and poorer glycemic control is a valuable contribution, reinforcing the existing understanding of the intricate mind-body connection in chronic disease management and providing a solid basis for the study's practical recommendations. While the study offers important insights, some methodological aspects warrant consideration. As a cross-sectional design, it inherently limits the ability to infer causality, meaning it cannot definitively conclude that anxiety *causes* poorer glycemic control, or vice-versa, or if a third, unmeasured variable influences both. The abstract does not mention whether potential confounding variables such as DM duration, type of DM, treatment regimens, comorbidities, or socioeconomic status were accounted for in the analysis, which could significantly impact the observed correlation. Furthermore, while purposive sampling can be efficient, it may introduce selection bias, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings beyond the specific hospital population studied. Overall, this study makes a relevant contribution to the literature on diabetes management, clearly demonstrating a significant association that underscores the need for a holistic approach to patient care. Despite the limitations inherent in its design, the findings strongly support the integration of psychological interventions into routine DM care to improve glycemic outcomes. Future research should consider longitudinal designs to establish causality, explore the effectiveness of specific anxiety-reduction interventions, and include a broader range of demographic and clinical variables to enhance generalizability and provide a more comprehensive understanding of this complex relationship. This work serves as a strong foundation for advocating for more integrated care models for DM patients.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.