AIM: To determine the psychometric properties and theoretical grounding of instruments that evaluate self-care behaviour or barriers in people with type 2 diabetes. BACKGROUND: There are many instruments designed to evaluate self-care behaviour or barriers in this population, but knowledge about their psychometric validation processes is lacking. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search for psychometric or validation studies published between January 1990-December 2012. We carried out searches in Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuolid, BibliPRO and Google SCHOLAR to identify instruments that evaluated self-care behaviours or barriers to diabetes self-care. REVIEW METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: Psychometric or clinimetric validation studies that included patients with type 2 diabetes (exclusively or partially) and which analysed self-care behaviour or barriers to self-care and proxies like self-efficacy or empowerment, from a multidimensional approach. Language: Spanish or English. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data using Terwee's proposed criteria: psychometrics properties, dimensionality, theoretical ground and population used for validation through each included instrument. RESULTS: Sixteen instruments achieved the inclusion criteria for the review. We detected important methodological flaws in many of the selected instruments. Only the Self-management Profile for Type 2 Diabetes and Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale met half of Terwee's quality criteria. CONCLUSION: There are no instruments for identifying self-care behaviours or barriers elaborated with a strong validation process. Further research should be carried out to provide patients, clinicians and researchers with valid and reliable instruments that are methodologically solid and theoretically grounded.
AIM: To determine the psychometric properties and theoretical grounding of instruments that evaluate self-care behaviour or barriers in people with type 2 diabetes. BACKGROUND: There are many instruments designed to evaluate self-care behaviour or barriers in this population, but knowledge about their psychometric validation processes is lacking. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search for psychometric or validation studies published between January 1990-December 2012. We carried out searches in Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuolid, BibliPRO and Google SCHOLAR to identify instruments that evaluated self-care behaviours or barriers to diabetes self-care. REVIEW METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: Psychometric or clinimetric validation studies that included patients with type 2 diabetes (exclusively or partially) and which analysed self-care behaviour or barriers to self-care and proxies like self-efficacy or empowerment, from a multidimensional approach. Language: Spanish or English. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data using Terwee's proposed criteria: psychometrics properties, dimensionality, theoretical ground and population used for validation through each included instrument. RESULTS: Sixteen instruments achieved the inclusion criteria for the review. We detected important methodological flaws in many of the selected instruments. Only the Self-management Profile for Type 2 Diabetes and Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale met half of Terwee's quality criteria. CONCLUSION: There are no instruments for identifying self-care behaviours or barriers elaborated with a strong validation process. Further research should be carried out to provide patients, clinicians and researchers with valid and reliable instruments that are methodologically solid and theoretically grounded.
Authors: Na Shin; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Susan Langan; Jennifer L Payne; Constantine Lyketsos; Sherita Hill Golden Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2017-02-12 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Martina Kamradt; Kayvan Bozorgmehr; Johannes Krisam; Tobias Freund; Marion Kiel; Markus Qreini; Elisabeth Flum; Sarah Berger; Werner Besier; Joachim Szecsenyi; Dominik Ose Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 3.186