New Diabetes Questionnaire to add patients' perspectives to diabetes care for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: nationwide cross-sectional study of construct validity assessing associations with generic health-related quality of life and clinical variables.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101552874 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2044-6055 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20446055 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMJ Open Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: [London] : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2011-
    • Subject Terms:
      Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2*/therapy ; Quality of Life*; Adult ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Psychometrics ; Reproducibility of Results ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Sweden
    • Abstract:
      Objectives: To study evidence for construct validity, the aim was to describe the outcome from the recently developed Diabetes Questionnaire, assess the associations of that outcome with clinical variables and generic health-related quality of life, and study the sensitivity to differences between clinically relevant groups of glycaemic control in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a nation-wide setting.
      Design: Cross-sectional survey.
      Setting: Swedish diabetes care clinics connected to the National Diabetes Register (NDR).
      Participants: Among 2479 adults with type 1 diabetes and 2469 with type 2 diabetes selected at random from the NDR, 1373 (55.4%) with type 1 and 1353 (54.8%) with type 2 diabetes chose to participate.
      Outcome Measures: The Diabetes Questionnaire, the generic 36-item Short Form version 2 (SF-36v2) health survey and clinical variables.
      Results: Related to the prespecified assumptions, supporting evidence for construct validity for the Diabetes Questionnaire was found. Supporting divergent validity, the statistically significant correlations with the clinical variables were few and weak. In relation to the SF-36v2 and in support of convergent validity, the strongest correlations were seen in the Diabetes Questionnaire scales General Well-being and Mood and Energy. In those scales, machine learning analyses showed that about 40%-45% of the variance was explained by the SF-36v2 results and clinical variables. In multiple regression analyses among three groups with differing levels of glycated haemoglobin adjusted for demographics, other risk factors, and diabetes complications, the high-risk group had, in support of sensitivity to clinically relevant groups, statistically significant lower scores than the well-controlled group in most Diabetes Questionnaire scales.
      Conclusions: This nation-wide study shows that the Diabetes Questionnaire captures some generic health-related quality-of-life dimensions, in addition to adding diabetes-specific information not covered by the SF-36v2 and clinical variables. The Diabetes Questionnaire is also sensitive to differences between clinically relevant groups of glycaemic control.
      Competing Interests: Competing interests: KE-O reports grants from the ALF agreement (ALFGBG 698991), during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work; SG reports grants from the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG 725311), during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, grants and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants and personal fees from Novo Nordisk, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work; the other authors declare that they have nothing to disclose.
      (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
    • References:
      BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 4;9(1):e025033. (PMID: 30612113)
      Qual Life Res. 2012 Oct;21(8):1305-14. (PMID: 22048932)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45. (PMID: 20494804)
      Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3130-9. (PMID: 11124729)
      Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Aug 14;17(1):141. (PMID: 31412881)
      Diabetes Care. 2008 May;31(5):1046-50. (PMID: 18445728)
      Diabet Med. 2006 Jun;23(6):579-93. (PMID: 16759299)
      Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S66-S76. (PMID: 31862749)
      Diabetes Care. 2016 Dec;39(12):2126-2140. (PMID: 27879358)
      BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 24;6(3):e010249. (PMID: 27013595)
      J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1480-501. (PMID: 24711559)
      Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Jul;97(7):1051-2. (PMID: 27095143)
      Diabetes Care. 2003 Apr;26(4):1270-6. (PMID: 12663609)
      Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Dec;106 Suppl 2:S291-4. (PMID: 25550056)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):358-65. (PMID: 20800442)
      Nurs Times. 2010 Feb 23-Mar 1;106(7):12-4. (PMID: 20334016)
      Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011 Dec;10(4):248-51. (PMID: 21764386)
      Diabet Med. 2009 Apr;26(4):315-27. (PMID: 19388959)
      Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S37-S47. (PMID: 31862747)
      Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Nov 26;11(12):12223-46. (PMID: 25431875)
      Curr Diab Rep. 2002 Apr;2(2):153-9. (PMID: 12643134)
      Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Jan;101(1):139-146. (PMID: 28736071)
      Diabet Med. 2015 Feb;32(2):155-63. (PMID: 25354315)
      Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S48-S65. (PMID: 31862748)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: clinical audit; general diabetes; quality in health care
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20201118 Date Completed: 20210419 Latest Revision: 20210419
    • Publication Date:
      20240628
    • Accession Number:
      PMC7674110
    • Accession Number:
      10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038966
    • Accession Number:
      33203629