Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for diabetes: development of scale models, differences between patient groups and relationships with cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors, in a combined registry and survey study in Sweden.
Adult
Aged
Cardiovascular Diseases
/ complications
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
/ complications
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
/ complications
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Psychometrics
Registries
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
Sweden
General Diabetes
Item Response Theory
Patient Reported Experience Measures (prem)
Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (prom)
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 01 2019
04 01 2019
Historique:
entrez:
7
1
2019
pubmed:
7
1
2019
medline:
20
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) has developed a diabetes-specific questionnaire to collect information on individuals' management of their diabetes, collaboration with healthcare providers and the disease's impact on daily life. Our main objective was to develop measures of well-being, abilities to manage diabetes and judgements of diabetes care, and to detect and quantify differences using the NDR questionnaire. The questionnaire was analysed with using responses from 3689 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes, randomly sampled from the NDR population, combined with register data on patient characteristics and cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors. We used item response theory to develop scales for measuring well-being, abilities to manage diabetes and judgements of diabetes care (scores). Test-retest reliability on the scale level was analysed with intraclass correlation. Associations between scores and risk factor levels were investigated with subgroup analyses and correlations. We obtained scales with satisfactory measurement properties, covering patient reported outcome measures such as general well-being and being free of worries, and patient reported experience measure, for example, access and continuity in diabetes care. All scales had acceptable test-retest reliability and could detect differences between diabetes types, age, gender and treatment subgroups. In several aspects, for example, freedom of worries, type 1 patients report lower than type 2, and younger patients lower than older. Associations were found between some scores and glycated haemoglobin, but none with systolic blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Clinicians report positive experience of using scores, visually presented, in the patient dialogue. The questionnaire measures and detects differences in patient well-being, abilities and judgements of diabetes care, and identifies areas for improvement. To further improve diabetes care, we conclude that patient-reported measures are important supplements to cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors, reflecting patient experiences of living with diabetes and diabetes care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30612113
pii: bmjopen-2018-025033
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025033
pmc: PMC6326341
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e025033Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Med Care. 2000 Sep;38(9 Suppl):II66-72
pubmed: 10982091
Health Econ. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):117-32
pubmed: 9158965
J Health Econ. 1991;10(4):411-32
pubmed: 10117012
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 24;6(3):e010249
pubmed: 27013595
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Nov 26;11(12):12223-46
pubmed: 25431875
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Jan;101(1):139-146
pubmed: 28736071
Diabetes Care. 2003 Apr;26(4):1270-6
pubmed: 12663609
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Dec;106 Suppl 2:S291-4
pubmed: 25550056
Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:5-18
pubmed: 17375372
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Health Econ. 1998 Nov;7(7):565-8
pubmed: 9845250
Med Care. 2000 Sep;38(9 Suppl):II28-42
pubmed: 10982088