METHODS: Data on demography, diabetes status, management and complications were collected via medical records, interview and laboratory assessments. HbA(1c) was analysed by a central laboratory prospectively.
RESULTS: Patient profile was similar in the 1998 (N = 21,838) and 2003 cohorts (N = 15,549): 95% were diagnosed as type 2 diabetes mellitus and were obese (BMI approximately 25 kg/m(2)). Glycaemic control was unsatisfactory in many patients (mean HbA(1c) approximately 8%; fasting glucose approximately 9 mmol/L). Lipids were well-controlled but hypertension was not. The incidence of neuropathy ( approximately 33%) and cataract ( approximately 27%) were high. The majority ( approximately 71%) of patients in both cohorts were treated with oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) monotherapy; approximately 24% were on insulin therapy. Approximately half of the 2003 cohort reported a healthy state of well-being. Quality of life did not appear to have suffered as a result of having diabetes. However, many patients were worried about hypoglycaemic risk (53.9%) or worsening of diabetes (45.8%) and insulin initiation (64.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Although both cohorts were separate cross-sectional studies of diabetes management status in Asia, the results showed that the demography profile, glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factors were remarkably similar in both cohorts 5 years after the first survey. More concerted efforts are needed to increase diabetes awareness and education.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive systematic electronic review (PUBMED, CINAHL, PsyINFO and Ovid) and handsearch were carried out to retrieve published articles up to November 2012, using Depression OR Dysthymia AND (Cancer OR Tumor OR Neoplasms as the keywords. Information about the design of the studies, measuring scale, characteristics of the participants, prevalence of depression and its associated factors from the included studies were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS: We identified 32 eligible studies that recruited 10,826 breast cancer survivors. Most were cross-sectional or prospective designed. The most frequent instrument used to screen depression was the Center for Epidemiological Studies for Depression (CES-D, n=11 studies) followed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, n=6 studies) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, n=6 studies). CES-D returned about similar prevalence of depression (median=22%, range=13-56%) with BDI (median=22%, range=17-48%) but higher than HADS (median=10%, range=1-22%). Depression was associated with several socio-demographic variables, cancer-related factors, treatment-related factors, subject psychological factors, lifestyle factors, social support and quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors are at risk for depression so that detection of associated factors is important in clinical practice.