The effects of social support on health, well-being and management of diabetes mellitus: a black South African perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the underlying dimensions of a social support measure and investigate the effects of social support on health, well-being and management of diabetes mellitus (metabolic control and blood pressure (BP) control). DESIGN: A cross-sectional, analytical design was used with a structured questionnaire, comprising demographic characteristics, the MOS Social Support Survey scale and the health perceptions and mental health sub-scales from the SF-20. SETTING: Two outpatient diabetes mellitus clinics in Pretoria, South Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Over a three-month period, the questionnaire was administered to 263 black diabetes mellitus outpatients (174 women and 89 men), aged between 16 and 89 years. The majority of patients (91%) were diagnosed as type 2 diabetes mellitus. Only 22% of the patients had acceptable metabolic control (HbA1c < 8.0%), in comparison with 46% who had good BP control (130/85 mmHg). There were significant differences between the clinics on BP control: participants from clinic 1 had better BP control than participants from clinic 2. RESULTS: Principal components analysis, followed by an orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotational solution, resulted in two social support factors accounting for 78.9% of the variance. The first factor was labelled socio-emotional support, due to the emphasis on close caring relationships. The second factor was concerned with the more tangible aspects of social support, such as the provision of assistance. Coefficient alpha was 0.97 (socio-emotional support), 0.95 (tangible support) and 0.97 (overall social support). Patients with lower levels of social support had poorer general health and well-being than patients with higher levels of social support. Controlling for clinic, patients with controlled BP had significantly more socio-emotional and tangible support than patients with poor BP control. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that: (1) socio-emotional and tangible support were the underlying dimensions of social support; (2) socio-emotional support is an important determinant of health and well-being; and (3) social support is beneficial for one aspect of diabetes mellitus management, namely, BP control.

Interpersonal and organizational dimensions of patient satisfaction: the moderating effects of health status.

OBJECTIVES: Based on Donabedian's structure, process, and outcome model, this study was conducted to identify the underlying dimensions of patient satisfaction for diabetic patients and determine the effects of demographic characteristics and health status on these dimensions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analytical research design was used with a questionnaire, comprising demographic characteristics, the general and mental health items from the SF-20, and a 25-item patient satisfaction scale. SETTING AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was administered to 263 South African black diabetic outpatients from the diabetic clinics at two hospitals. There were 174 females and 89 males, aged between 16 and 89 years (mean = 53.5, sd = 13.9). The average number of years of schooling was 6.3 (sd = 4.1). Main outcome measure. A reliable and valid patient satisfaction scale. RESULTS: Factor analysis was conducted on the patient satisfaction scale and two factors, accounting for 71.6% of the variance, were extracted. The major items on Factor I were support, consideration, friendliness, and encouragement, labelled the interpersonal dimension. Factor II emphasized availability of a seat and toilet in the waiting area and cleanliness, labelled the organizational dimension. The two factors had very good reliability coefficients: 0.85 (organizational) and 0.98 (interpersonal). Multi-trait scaling showed that all items exceeded the item convergent (r > 0.40) and discriminant (Z > 1.96) validity criteria. Patients in poor general health were significantly less satisfied (P = 0.007) with the organizational quality of their care than patients in good health; patients in poor mental health were significantly less satisfied (P = 0.04) with the interpersonal quality of their care than patients in good mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provided support for Donabedian's model. They demonstrated that attributes of providers and settings are major components of patient satisfaction, and showed that the scale is a reliable and valid measure of patient satisfaction for this South African population.