Development of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Towards Nasal versus Autoinjector Glucagon Delivery Devices for Treatment of Severe Hypoglycemia.
diabetes
glucagon delivery device
patient attitudes
severe hypoglycemic events
Journal
Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy
ISSN: 1178-7007
Titre abrégé: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101515585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
07
06
2022
accepted:
17
09
2022
entrez:
28
11
2022
pubmed:
29
11
2022
medline:
29
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For individuals managing diabetes, the administration of glucagon for severe hypoglycemia can be lifesaving, yet, until recently, there were no easy-to-use devices for these stressful emergencies. New products have emerged to meet this need, including nasal glucagon (NG) and auto-injector glucagon (AI). This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a new measure, the Glucagon Device Attitudes Questionnaire (GDAQ), in assessing attitudes toward NG and AI from the perspectives of persons with diabetes on insulin (PWDs), caregivers, and acquaintances. Developed based on qualitative research, the GDAQ consists of 38 rating items for each device and 16 direct-elicitation of attitudes of device relative to each other. It was administered to participants via a cross-sectional online survey. Twenty-six rating items were included in principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Items comprising each factor were averaged to form scales. Additionally, 12 direct elicitation items were averaged to form an overall "Attitudes" scale. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were provided for the rating items not included in the factor analysis. A total of 405 PWDs, 313 caregivers, and 305 acquaintances participated. Three factors were identified: "Prepared and Protected" (7 items), "Hesitation" (12 items), and "Device Perceptions by Others" (7 items); factor loadings ranged from 0.13 to 0.92, 0.50 to 0.89, and 0.16 to 0.92, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for the four scales ranged from 0.76 to 0.96. Correlations of the scales with their global item ranged from 0.30 to 0.90. The items outside of the factor analysis showed good distribution in responses and differentiation between the two devices. This study supports the validity and reliability of the GDAQ, which successfully conceptualizes attitudes towards devices for administering glucagon among different respondent groups. Use of the GDAQ can help guide the development and testing of new glucagon drug/device combinations.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
For individuals managing diabetes, the administration of glucagon for severe hypoglycemia can be lifesaving, yet, until recently, there were no easy-to-use devices for these stressful emergencies. New products have emerged to meet this need, including nasal glucagon (NG) and auto-injector glucagon (AI). This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a new measure, the Glucagon Device Attitudes Questionnaire (GDAQ), in assessing attitudes toward NG and AI from the perspectives of persons with diabetes on insulin (PWDs), caregivers, and acquaintances.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Developed based on qualitative research, the GDAQ consists of 38 rating items for each device and 16 direct-elicitation of attitudes of device relative to each other. It was administered to participants via a cross-sectional online survey. Twenty-six rating items were included in principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Items comprising each factor were averaged to form scales. Additionally, 12 direct elicitation items were averaged to form an overall "Attitudes" scale. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were provided for the rating items not included in the factor analysis.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 405 PWDs, 313 caregivers, and 305 acquaintances participated. Three factors were identified: "Prepared and Protected" (7 items), "Hesitation" (12 items), and "Device Perceptions by Others" (7 items); factor loadings ranged from 0.13 to 0.92, 0.50 to 0.89, and 0.16 to 0.92, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for the four scales ranged from 0.76 to 0.96. Correlations of the scales with their global item ranged from 0.30 to 0.90. The items outside of the factor analysis showed good distribution in responses and differentiation between the two devices.
Discussion
UNASSIGNED
This study supports the validity and reliability of the GDAQ, which successfully conceptualizes attitudes towards devices for administering glucagon among different respondent groups. Use of the GDAQ can help guide the development and testing of new glucagon drug/device combinations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36439296
doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S367010
pii: 367010
pmc: PMC9694976
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3601-3615Informations de copyright
© 2022 Bajpai et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
SKB, JLP, QW, BDM, and NKR are full-time employees of Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA). CJC is a full-time employee of Eli Lilly and Company (Erl Wood Manor, Windlesham, UK). JLP, BDM, and CJC own stock in Eli Lilly and Company. MJCM, OW, EYP, JB, and KB are employees of Cerner Enviza, who provided consulting services on this study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Mar;68(3):341-4
pubmed: 12685642
Clin Ther. 2017 Nov;39(11):2284-2295
pubmed: 29110972
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Feb 26;2:12
pubmed: 14987333
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0126427
pubmed: 26061690
Diabetes Care. 2013 May;36(5):1384-95
pubmed: 23589542
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:39-48
pubmed: 22272068
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan;41(Suppl 1):S105-S118
pubmed: 29222381
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014 Dec;10(12):711-22
pubmed: 25287289
Diabetes Care. 2005 May;28(5):1245-9
pubmed: 15855602
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Jul 01;6(4):910-6
pubmed: 22920818
Clin Ther. 2019 Oct;41(10):2073-2089.e6
pubmed: 31526655
BMJ. 1997 Jun 28;314(7098):1874
pubmed: 9224131
J Anxiety Disord. 2006;20(7):946-60
pubmed: 16460906
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Jul 27;10:1385-99
pubmed: 27528802
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2015 Mar 20;3(1):e000057
pubmed: 25815204
Vaccine. 2012 Jul 6;30(32):4807-12
pubmed: 22617633
Diabetes Care. 2016 Feb;39(2):264-70
pubmed: 26681725
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S203-S204
pubmed: 31862759
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 19;2:44
pubmed: 30294714
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Jul;19(7):423-432
pubmed: 28556672
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Apr 21;9(5):1071-9
pubmed: 25901022
Diabetes Ther. 2016 Jun;7(2):295-308
pubmed: 27101312
Diabetologia. 2007 Jun;50(6):1140-7
pubmed: 17415551
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Jun 28;10(4):905-13
pubmed: 26880392
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Aug;20(8):1812-1816
pubmed: 29652110
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 12;2:43
pubmed: 30294713