Table 1 Diabetic control and family function - a review

1981

Andersen, et al. [5]

FES

Diabetic Adolescent

1.) Well controlled youth reported more cohesion and less conflict among family members.

2.) More parents of well-controlled youth stated that family members were encouraged to behave independently.

3.) More patients of poorly controlled adolescents believed that diabetes and negatively affected the children’s personality, physical well being, schooling, and participation in activities away from home.

1987

Cardenas, et, al. [6]

FamilyAPGAR

Diabetic adults

Good family function was found in 92% of patients in good control of their diabetes mellitus, in 66% of those in fair control, and only in 50% of those in poor control.

1990

Lawler, et, al. [7]

FACESIII

Diabetic adolescents

The more disengaged the family system, the worse the diabetic control for the adolescents.

(Between the age of 15 and 18)

1993

Konen, et, al. [3]

FACESIII

Diabetic adults

1.) A greater population of adults perceived their family to be disengaged than subjects from families without diabetes.

2.) Adults with NIDDM in good glycemic control as measured by glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels had lower family cohesion and negative affect than those in poor control.

3.) Conversely those with IDDM with acceptable glycosylated hemoglobin levels had higher family cohesion, less negative affect.

1993

Yamamoto, et, al [8]

FamilyAPGAR

Type ı diabetic inpatients

The family APGAR score was higher in the good control group than in the group with poor control.

1995

Hanson, et, al [9]

FACESIII, FES

Youth 12–20 years of age with IDDM

Positive family relationships (high family cohesion and low family conflict), with IDDM especially during the first years of illness, indirectly related to good metabolic control (through positive adherence behaviors).

1995

Gowers, et, al [10]

FAD

Diabetic adolescents

There was little association between glycemic control and family functioning whether rated by adolescents or parents.

1997

Kawaguchi, et, al [11]

FES

Type I diabetic adolescents and young adults

1) The better expressiveness was, the better diabetic control became. The phenomenon was more seen for men than for women.

2) Good family organization made the better self control, duly and effectual Insulin therapy, and better controlled diet therapy. (Japanese article)

1997

Carol Dashiff [12]

FES

Type I diabetic adolescents

1.) Single parent’s family had poorly controlled diabetic adolescents, but higher cohesion made better diabetic control.

2.) Parent’s independency made better diabetic control.

3.) The higher mother’s responsibility was, the the worse diabetic control became. (Japanese article)

1998

Trief, et, al [13]

FES

Insulin-required diabetic adults

Family cohesion related to better physical function, but none of the family system measures were significant predictors of HbA1c.

1998

Tubiana, et, al [14]

FACES III

French diabetic children (Between the age of 7 and 13)

1.) More diabetic families than comparison families fell into the categories of disengaged (with low levels of cohesion) and rigid (with low levels of adaptability).

2.) Family functions were significantly and positively correlated with adherence scores, but not with HbA1c levels.

3.) Children whose families were characterized as rigidly disengaged had a significantly greater number of hypoglycemia and six times as many episodes of ketoacidosis than other diabetic children.

2001

Ikuta [4]

FACESKG IV

Diabetic adults

1.) The majority of diabetic family were enmeshed family and many diabetic families were flexible family.

2.) Families of type ı diabetic patient had higher adaptability.

3.) Enmeshed family had low burden and anxiety