medigraphic.com
Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud de la Universidad de Guadalajara y del OPD Hospitales Civiles de Guadalajara

2006, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Inv Salud 2006; 8 (3)

Autoperceptión of quality of life ingreater adults with diabetes Mellitus Type 2

Alfaro AN, Carothers EMR, González TYS

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 152-157
PDF size: 369.19 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Diabetes Mellitus type 2 is a high prevalence chronic disease, the first cause of specialist consult, second in family medicine and the most important cause for retirement in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Patients present macro and microvascular complications with no medical control.
Diabetes Mellitus affect, physic, psychological, social and adults quality of life.
The goal was to determine the autoperception quality of life in adults with diabetes mellitus.
A cross sectional study in 150 persons with previous diagnostic of Diabetes Mellitus, was carried out.
Data were collected in a demographic questionnaire, control of glucosa and quality of life. Sociodemographic characteristics, glucose control and autoperception quality of life.
We found more than a half perceive a good quality of life, among extended families; patients with a controlled glucose lives in nuclear families, they receive support and are satisfied with it; with better quality of life who receive support in case of disability.


REFERENCES

  1. Adam D, “The counting house” Nature 415: 726-9, 2002

  2. Bernard G, en Research Ethics, A Reader, Elliot D y Stern JE (eds), University Press of New England, 1997

  3. Cantú JM, Ibarra B. “Phosphoglucomutase - evidence for a new locus expressed in human milk” Science 216: 639 40, 1982

  4. Carey JC. “A species not extinct: publication of case reports and scientific knowledge” Am J Med Genet 140A: 801-3, 2006

  5. Clarke T. “Copied citations give impact factors a boost” Nature 423: 373, 2003

  6. Colquhoun D. “Challenging the tirany of impact factors” Nature 423: 479, 2003

  7. Drago GA, Hopkinson DA. “Westwood SA et al, Antigenic analysis of the major human phosphoglucomutase isozymes – PGM1, PGM2, PGM3 and PGM4” Ann Hum Genet 55: 263-71, 1991

  8. Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A, The “impact factor” revisited. Biomed Digit Lib 2: 7, 2005

  9. Editorial, “Not-so-deep impact” Nature 435: 1003-4, 2005

  10. Fenning TM. “Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risks” Nature 427: 393, 2004

  11. Hecht F, Hecht BK, Sandberg AA, “The journal impact factor: a misnamed, misleading, misused measure” Cancer Genet Cytogenet 104: 77-81, 1998

  12. Kwok LS. “The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism” J Med Ethics 31: 554-6, 2005

  13. Ibarra B, Cantu JM. “A new PGM locus expressed in human milk” (Abstract) Sixth Int Cong Hum Genet, Jerusalem, p.35, 1981.

  14. McKusick VA; Online Mendelian Inheritande in Man, OMIM, (consultado en septiembre 2006), URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/

  15. Moed HF, “The impact-factors debate: the ISI’s use and limits” Nature 425: 731-2, 2002.

  16. Rivera H, “Authorship and fragile X studies” Arch Med Res 27: 587-8, 1996

  17. Rivera H. “Heteroallelic twins and twin publications” Am J Med Genet 86: 88, 1999

  18. Rivera H, Domínguez MG, Matute E. “Follow-up of an intelligent odd-mannered teenager with del(3)(p26). Remarks on authorship and ethical commitment” Genet Counsel 17: 401-405, 2006.

  19. Ruiz-Vallarta C, http://www.denouncing.net (consultado en abril 2006)

  20. Science Citation Index Expanded, http://scientific.thomson.com/products/scie/

  21. Seglen PO. “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research” BMJ 314: 498-502, 1997.

  22. Wilmshurst P. “The code of silence” Lancet 349: 567-9, 1997.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com