Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Melanie M Broadley, Uffe Søholm, Debbie D Cooke, Christel Hendrieckx, Elizabeth J Coates, Simon R Heller, Jane Speight
{"title":"评估 2 型糖尿病对生活质量影响的四个量表的可接受性和心理测量特性--\"YourSAY:生活质量 \"的结果。","authors":"Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Melanie M Broadley, Uffe Søholm, Debbie D Cooke, Christel Hendrieckx, Elizabeth J Coates, Simon R Heller, Jane Speight","doi":"10.1111/dme.15461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess and compare the psychometric properties and acceptability of four diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) scales among adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults (≥18 years) with T2D living in the United Kingdom (n = 1465) or Australia (n = 248) completed a cross-sectional, online survey including the following: ADDQoL, DCP, DIDP and Diabetes QoL-Q (presented in randomised order), followed by rating scales to assess clarity, relevance, ease of completion, length and comprehensiveness of each scale. Demographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics were collected. Acceptability (scale completeness and user ratings), response patterns, structure (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and validity (convergent, confirmatory, divergent and known-groups) were examined. Data were analysed by country to assess cross-country reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>High completion rates (≥89%) and positive user ratings were observed across scales indicating broad acceptability. The DIDP was the strongest performing scale: highest completion rate (97%), user ratings (≥84% positive) and most satisfactory psychometric properties (highest variance explained, consistent factor loadings >0.5 on all items and most permissible model fit parameters). Scale-level floor effects may suggest domain omissions for the brief DIDP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current study provides novel insights into the acceptability, validity and reliability of diabetes-specific QoL measures for adults with T2D. Consistent with the published Type 1 diabetes cohort findings, the DIDP is recommended as a brief, acceptable and psychometrically sound measure. However, selection needs to be considered in the context of the specific research or clinical aims and further evidence (e.g. responsiveness) may be required before it can be recommended for use in trials or prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11251,"journal":{"name":"Diabetic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability and psychometric properties of four scales assessing the impact of Type 2 diabetes on quality of life-Results of 'YourSAY: Quality of Life'.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Melanie M Broadley, Uffe Søholm, Debbie D Cooke, Christel Hendrieckx, Elizabeth J Coates, Simon R Heller, Jane Speight\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dme.15461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess and compare the psychometric properties and acceptability of four diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) scales among adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults (≥18 years) with T2D living in the United Kingdom (n = 1465) or Australia (n = 248) completed a cross-sectional, online survey including the following: ADDQoL, DCP, DIDP and Diabetes QoL-Q (presented in randomised order), followed by rating scales to assess clarity, relevance, ease of completion, length and comprehensiveness of each scale. Demographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics were collected. Acceptability (scale completeness and user ratings), response patterns, structure (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and validity (convergent, confirmatory, divergent and known-groups) were examined. Data were analysed by country to assess cross-country reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>High completion rates (≥89%) and positive user ratings were observed across scales indicating broad acceptability. The DIDP was the strongest performing scale: highest completion rate (97%), user ratings (≥84% positive) and most satisfactory psychometric properties (highest variance explained, consistent factor loadings >0.5 on all items and most permissible model fit parameters). Scale-level floor effects may suggest domain omissions for the brief DIDP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current study provides novel insights into the acceptability, validity and reliability of diabetes-specific QoL measures for adults with T2D. Consistent with the published Type 1 diabetes cohort findings, the DIDP is recommended as a brief, acceptable and psychometrically sound measure. However, selection needs to be considered in the context of the specific research or clinical aims and further evidence (e.g. responsiveness) may be required before it can be recommended for use in trials or prospective studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15461\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15461","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Acceptability and psychometric properties of four scales assessing the impact of Type 2 diabetes on quality of life-Results of 'YourSAY: Quality of Life'.
Aims: To assess and compare the psychometric properties and acceptability of four diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) scales among adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with T2D living in the United Kingdom (n = 1465) or Australia (n = 248) completed a cross-sectional, online survey including the following: ADDQoL, DCP, DIDP and Diabetes QoL-Q (presented in randomised order), followed by rating scales to assess clarity, relevance, ease of completion, length and comprehensiveness of each scale. Demographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics were collected. Acceptability (scale completeness and user ratings), response patterns, structure (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and validity (convergent, confirmatory, divergent and known-groups) were examined. Data were analysed by country to assess cross-country reproducibility.
Results: High completion rates (≥89%) and positive user ratings were observed across scales indicating broad acceptability. The DIDP was the strongest performing scale: highest completion rate (97%), user ratings (≥84% positive) and most satisfactory psychometric properties (highest variance explained, consistent factor loadings >0.5 on all items and most permissible model fit parameters). Scale-level floor effects may suggest domain omissions for the brief DIDP.
Conclusions: The current study provides novel insights into the acceptability, validity and reliability of diabetes-specific QoL measures for adults with T2D. Consistent with the published Type 1 diabetes cohort findings, the DIDP is recommended as a brief, acceptable and psychometrically sound measure. However, selection needs to be considered in the context of the specific research or clinical aims and further evidence (e.g. responsiveness) may be required before it can be recommended for use in trials or prospective studies.
期刊介绍:
Diabetic Medicine, the official journal of Diabetes UK, is published monthly simultaneously, in print and online editions.
The journal publishes a range of key information on all clinical aspects of diabetes mellitus, ranging from human genetic studies through clinical physiology and trials to diabetes epidemiology. We do not publish original animal or cell culture studies unless they are part of a study of clinical diabetes involving humans. Categories of publication include research articles, reviews, editorials, commentaries, and correspondence. All material is peer-reviewed.
We aim to disseminate knowledge about diabetes research with the goal of improving the management of people with diabetes. The journal therefore seeks to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between clinicians and researchers worldwide. Topics covered are of importance to all healthcare professionals working with people with diabetes, whether in primary care or specialist services.
Surplus generated from the sale of Diabetic Medicine is used by Diabetes UK to know diabetes better and fight diabetes more effectively on behalf of all people affected by and at risk of diabetes as well as their families and carers.”