BACKGROUND: The evaluation of patient-reported outcomes (e.g. impact, satisfaction) is important in trials of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). We evaluated psychometric properties of the CGM Satisfaction Scale (CGM-SAT) and the Glucose Monitoring Survey (GMS). METHODS: CGM-SAT is a 44-item scale on which patients (n=224) or parents (n=102) rated their experience with CGM over the prior 6 months. GMS is a 22-item scale on which patients (n=447) or parents (n=221) rated the blood glucose monitoring system they were using (home glucose meter with or without CGM) at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: The alpha coefficient for the CGM-SAT was > or = 0.94 for all respondents and for the GMS was > or = 0.84 for all respondents at baseline and 6 months. Parent-youth agreement was 0.52 for the CGM-SAT at 6 months and 0.24 and 0.20 for the GMS at baseline and 6 months for the Standard Care Group, respectively. Test-retest reliability of the GMS at 6 months for controls was r=0.76 for adult patients, 0.63 for pediatric patients, and 0.43 for parents. Factor analysis isolated measurement factors for the CGM-SAT labeled Benefits of CGM and Hassles of CGM, accounting for 33% and 9% of score variance, respectively. For the GMS, two factors emerged: Glucose Control and Social Complications, accounting for 28% and 9% of variance, respectively. Significant correlations of CGM-SAT with frequency of CGM use between 6 months and baseline and GMS with frequency of conventional daily self-monitoring of blood glucose at baseline support their convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The CGM-SAT and GMS are reliable and valid measures of patient-reported CGM outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of patient-reported outcomes (e.g. impact, satisfaction) is important in trials of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). We evaluated psychometric properties of the CGM Satisfaction Scale (CGM-SAT) and the Glucose Monitoring Survey (GMS). METHODS:CGM-SAT is a 44-item scale on which patients (n=224) or parents (n=102) rated their experience with CGM over the prior 6 months. GMS is a 22-item scale on which patients (n=447) or parents (n=221) rated the blood glucose monitoring system they were using (home glucose meter with or without CGM) at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: The alpha coefficient for the CGM-SAT was > or = 0.94 for all respondents and for the GMS was > or = 0.84 for all respondents at baseline and 6 months. Parent-youth agreement was 0.52 for the CGM-SAT at 6 months and 0.24 and 0.20 for the GMS at baseline and 6 months for the Standard Care Group, respectively. Test-retest reliability of the GMS at 6 months for controls was r=0.76 for adult patients, 0.63 for pediatric patients, and 0.43 for parents. Factor analysis isolated measurement factors for the CGM-SAT labeled Benefits of CGM and Hassles of CGM, accounting for 33% and 9% of score variance, respectively. For the GMS, two factors emerged: Glucose Control and Social Complications, accounting for 28% and 9% of variance, respectively. Significant correlations of CGM-SAT with frequency of CGM use between 6 months and baseline and GMS with frequency of conventional daily self-monitoring of blood glucose at baseline support their convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The CGM-SAT and GMS are reliable and valid measures of patient-reported CGM outcomes.
Authors: Bruce Buckingham; Roy W Beck; William V Tamborlane; Dongyuan Xing; Craig Kollman; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Nelly Mauras; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Stuart A Weinzimer; Tim Wysocki Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2007-08-24 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Darrell M Wilson; Roy W Beck; William V Tamborlane; Mariya J Dontchev; Craig Kollman; Peter Chase; Larry A Fox; Katrina J Ruedy; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart A Weinzimer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stuart Weinzimer; Dongyuan Xing; Michael Tansey; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Nelly Mauras; Tim Wysocki; Roy Beck; William Tamborlane; Katrina Ruedy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roy W Beck; Irl B Hirsch; Lori Laffel; William V Tamborlane; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart A Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Cari Berget; Kimberly A Driscoll; Ann Lagges; Samantha Lange; Linda A DiMeglio; Tamara S Hannon; Stephanie E Woerner; Esti Iturralde; Regan C Barley; Sarah Hanes; Korey K Hood; Bruce B Buckingham Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Roy W Beck; Jean M Lawrence; Lori Laffel; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing; Elbert S Huang; Brett Ives; Craig Kollman; Joyce Lee; Katrina J Ruedy; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 19.112