| Objective: To explore the psychological status of hospitalized young diabetic patients,analyze the correlation between anxiety,depression,diabetes distress and psychological resilience,coping modes of this group,and compare the differences between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients,in order to provide reference for formulating targeted intervention measures.Methods: Through the convenience sampling method,258 young diabetic patients who met the research criteria and were hospitalized in the Department of Endocrinology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from October 2021 to November 2022 were selected,aged 18-45,including 77 patients with T1 DM and 181 patients with T2 DM.The general information questionnaire,self-rating anxiety scale(SAS),self-rating depression scale(SDS),diabetes distress scale(DDS),Connor-Davidson resilience scale(CD-RISC)and medical coping mode questionnaire(MCMQ)were distributed.At the same time,the admission physical examination data,blood sampling index results and screening results for chronic complications of diabetes were collected.Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for normality test,Spearman correlation analysis was used to explore the correlation of each scale score,and two independent samples t test,rank sum test,chi-square test and Fisher’s exact probability method were used to compare the differences in various indicators between patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.Results: Among the 258 young diabetic patients,56.6% were newly diagnosed and treated,34.5% had family history,38.4% had anxiety,45.7% had depression,24.8%had anxiety and depression,43.4% had moderate/severe diabetes distress.The results of Spearman correlation analysis showed that SAS scores,SDS scores,DDS total scores and scores of each dimension were negatively correlated with CD-RISC total scores and scores of each dimension(r=-0.264~-0.557,P<0.01),and were positively correlated with yield coping mode scores(r=0.284~0.380,P<0.01).SAS scores,SDS scores,DDS total scores and emotional burden,doctor-related,life regularity scores were negatively correlated with face coping mode scores(r=-0.164~-0.243,P<0.01).SAS scores,DDS total scores and scores of each dimension were positively correlated with avoidance coping mode scores(r=0.125~0.250,P<0.01 or 0.05).CD-RISC total scores and scores of each dimension were positively correlated with the face coping mode scores(r= 0.329~0.371,P<0.01),were negatively correlated with yielding coping mode scores(r=-0.305~-0.407,P<0.01).The comparison results of various indicators between T1 DM and T2 DM patients showed that they were significantly different in gender,age,body mass index(BMI),marital status,family residence,hospitalization days,family history,course of disease,ketosis,hypoglycemia,systolic blood pressure(SBP),diastolic blood pressure(DBP),total cholesterol(TC),triglycerides(TG),high-density lipoprotein cholesterol(HDL-C),very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol(VLDL-C),triiodothyronine(T3),thyroxine(T4),SAS scores,SDS scores,DDS total scores and each dimension scores,CD-RISC total scores and strength,optimistic dimension scores,yield coping mode scores(P<0.05).The total scores of CD-RISC and scores of each dimension of strength and optimism in patients with T1 DM were lower than those of T2 DM,the SAS scores,SDS scores,DDS total scores and scores of each dimension,yielding coping mode scores were higher than those of T2 DM.Conclusions: 1.Anxiety,depression and diabetes distress are more common in hospitalized young diabetic patients,attention should be paid to the screening of negative emotions in this group.2.Negative emotions are related to psychological resilience and coping modes.Improving psychological resilience and adopting positive coping modes can help reduce negative emotions.3.The mental state of T1 DM and T2 DM patients is different.T1 DM patients have lower psychological resilience than T2 DM patients,tend to negative coping modes,and are more prone to negative emotions such as anxiety,depression and diabetes distress.Psychological interventions should be strengthened for T1 DM patients. |