4.3. Self-Management Behaviour of T2DM Adults
4.4.1 Difference between Age and Self-Management Behaviour
Table 4.4.1: Difference between age and self-management behaviour (n=112) Sociodemographic
variables
n (%) Self-management behaviour score
Mean ± S.D.
p-value
Age
18-30 years old 31-40 years old 41-50 years old 51-60 years old 60 and above
6 (5.4) 4 (3.6) 13 (11.6) 24 (21.4) 65 (58.0)
6.11 ± 1.93 6.77 ± 0.81a 5.45 ± 1.66 5.16 ± 1.55 4.51 ± 1.35a
0.002
Data were tested using ANOVA with significance at p < 0.05, n = total sample size, n = number of subjects, (%) = Subjects’ responses in percentage, S.D.=
standard deviation, Means for groups in homogenous subsets are performed, and the same superscript indicates significant difference at p < 0.05.
The result shows that self-management behaviour is significantly different by age with a p-value of 0.002. The significant difference was between 31-40 years old and 60 years old and above with a p-value of 0.025. As shown in the same superscript, the age group of 60 years old and above have significantly lower self-management behaviour with means of 4.51 ± 1.35 than those in 31- 40 years old with means of 6.77 ± 0.81.
52 4.4.2 Difference between Education Level and Self-Management Behaviour
Table 4.4.2: Difference between education level and self-management behaviour (n=112)
Sociodemographic variables n (%) Self-management behaviour score
Mean ± S.D.
p-value
Education level None
Primary
Secondary/SPM/ IGCSE Tertiary Education (College/University)
39 (34.8) 29 (25.9) 25 (22.3) 19 (17.0)
4.24 ± 0.99a,b 4.31 ± 1.30c,d 5.67 ± 1.54a,c 6.27 ± 1.55b,d
< 0.001
Data were tested using ANOVA with significance at p < 0.05, n = total sample size, n = number of subjects, (%) = Subjects’ responses in percentage, S.D.=
standard deviation, Means for groups in homogenous subsets are performed, and the same superscript indicates significant difference at p < 0.05.
Based on Table 4.4.2, the difference between sociodemographic data on education level and self-management behaviour of T2DM adults was determined using the ANOVA test. As shown in the table, shows a significant difference between the education level of T2DM adults and self-management behaviour at the p-value < 0.001.
53 The Post hoc test of Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test was performed to determine the difference between education level with self-management behaviour. The results show significant difference between no education level with Secondary/SPM/IGCSE (p-value < 0.001) and Tertiary education (College/ University) (p-value < 0.001) as well as Primary education level with Secondary/SPM/IGCSE (p-value < 0.001) and Tertiary education (College/
University) (p-value < 0.001). Besides that, there is also significant difference between Secondary/SPM/IGCSE with Tertiary education (College/ University) (p-value = 0.0432). However, there is no significant difference between no education level and primary education level (p-value = 0.997).
As shown in the same superscript, it can be concluded that T2DM adults with no education level (Mean = 4.24 ± 0.99) have poorer self-management behaviour than Secondary/SPM/ IGCSE (Mean = 5.67 ± 1.54) and Tertiary education (College/ University) (Mean = 6.27 ± 1.55) respectively. In addition, T2DM adults with primary education level (Mean = 4.31 ± 1.30) also have poorer self-management behaviour that T2DM adults with higher education level which are Secondary/SPM/ IGCSE (Mean = 5.67 ± 1.54) and Tertiary education (College/ University) (Mean = 6.27 ± 1.55) respectively. Overall, it can be concluded that T2DM adults with lower education levels have a poorer practice of self-management behaviour as compared to T2DM adults with higher education levels.
54 4.4.3 Difference between Duration Diagnosed with T2DM and Self- Management Behaviour
Table 4.4.3: Difference between duration diagnosed with T2DM and self- management behaviour (n=112)
Sociodemographic variables
n (%) Self-management behaviour score
Mean ± S.D.
p-value
Duration diagnosed with T2DM
< 2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years > 10 years
15 (13.4) 28 (25.0) 48 (42.9) 21 (18.8)
6.24 ± 1.29a,b 5.17 ± 1.79 4.35 ± 1.19a 4.95 ± 1.49b
< 0.001
Data was tested using ANOVA with significance at p < 0.05, n = total sample size, n = number of subjects, (%) = Subjects’ responses in percentage, S.D.=
standard deviation, Means for groups in homogenous subsets are performed, the same superscript indicates significant difference at p < 0.05.
ANOVA was performed to determine the difference between sociodemographic data of duration diagnosed with T2DM and self- management behaviour of T2DM adults as shown in Table 4.4.3. The result shows a significant difference in self-management behaviour among five groups of duration diagnosed with T2DM whereby p-value p < 0.001 which is p < 0.05.
55 Post hoc Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test indicated that there were significant differences between T2DM adults with less than two years and five to ten years diagnosed with a p-value < 0.001. A similar pattern of significant difference was also seen between T2DM adults with less than two years with those diagnosed with more than ten with the p-value = 0.0437.
As shown in the same superscript, it can be concluded that T2DM adults with a shorter duration of T2DM diagnosis of less than two years (Mean = 6.24 ± 1.29) have a better self-management behaviour than T2DM adults that are diagnosed with diabetes for a longer duration such as those adults that are diagnosed for diabetes for five to ten years (Mean = 4.35 ± 1.19). Following the same trend, T2DM adults diagnosed with T2DM for less than two years (Mean = 6.24 ± 1.29) have better self-management behaviour than T2DM adults that are diagnosed with diabetes for more than ten years (Mean = 4.95 ± 1.49). Overall, it can be concluded that T2DM adults that are diagnosed with T2DM for a shorter duration of time have better self-management behaviour than T2DM adults diagnosed for a longer period.
56 4.4 4 Difference between Gender and Self-Management Behaviour
Table 4.4.4: Difference between gender and self-management behaviour (n=112)
Sociodemographic variables
n (%) Self-management behaviour score
Mean ± S.D.
p-value
Gender Male Female
41 (36.6) 71 (63.4)
4.92 ± 1.43 4.92 ± 1.61
0.992
Data was tested using Independent T-Test with significance at p < 0.05, n = total sample size, n = number of subjects, (%) = Subjects’ responses in percentage, S.D.= standard deviation
As shown in Table 4.4.4, there is no significant difference between gender and self-management behaviour in T2DM adults who participated in this study with the p-value of 0.992.
57 4.4.5 Difference between Marital Status and Self-Management Behaviour
Table 4.4.5: Difference between marital status and self-management behaviour (n=112)
Sociodemographic variables
n (%) Self-management behaviour score
Mean ± S.D.
p-value
Marital status Single Married
90 (80.4) 22 (19.6)
4.90 ± 1.54 5.03 ± 1.57
0.719
Data was tested using Independent T-Test with significance at p < 0.05, n = total sample size, n = number of subjects, (%) = Subjects’ responses in percentage, S.D.= standard deviation
Table 4.4.5 indicates the difference between the sociodemographic variables on marital status and self-management behaviour. Results indicated that there is no significant difference between the marital status of the T2DM adults with self-management behaviour as the p-value is more than 0.05 (p = 0.719).
58 4.5 Relationship between Health Literacy and Self-Management Behaviour
Table 4.5: Relationship between health literacy and self-management behaviour (n=112)
Health literacy n(%) Self-management behaviour Mean ± S.D.
p-value
Limited Sufficient Excellent
85 (75.9) 18 (16.1) 9 (8.0)
4.39 ± 1.14a,b 6.44 ± 1.62a 6.92 ± 0.94b
< 0.001
Data was tested using ANOVA with significance at p < 0.05, n = total sample size, n = number of subjects, (%) = Subjects’ responses in percentage, S.D. = standard deviation, Means for groups in homogenous subsets are performed, the same superscript indicates significant difference at p < 0.05.
Based on the ANOVA test, there is a significant difference between health literacy of three levels with the self-management behaviour in the studied T2DM adults. Based on post hoc test, it is indicated that significant difference between “limited health literacy” level and “sufficient health literacy” level with p-value < 0.001 whereby p < 0.05. Besides that, a significant difference also presents between “limited health literacy” level and “excellent health literacy” with a p-value < 0.001whereby p < 0.05. However, there is no significant difference between “sufficient health literacy” level and “excellent health literacy” level with a p-value of 0.594.
59 As shown in the same superscript, it was indicated that T2DM adults with
“sufficient health literacy” level and “excellent health literacy” level have the same level of self-management behaviour. However, those with “limited health literacy” level (Mean = 4.39 ± 1.14) have poorer self-management behaviour than T2DM adults with “sufficient health literacy” level (Mean = 6.44 ± 1.62) and “excellent health literacy” level (Mean = 6.92 ± 0.94) respectively. In conclusion, it can be concluded that those with lower health literacy level has poorer self-management behaviour and those with excellent health literacy level have better self-management behaviour.
60 4.5.1 Relationship between Health Literacy and Self-Management Behaviour Subscales