Jiyeon Lee1, Eun-Hyun Lee2, Chun-Ja Kim3, Seung Hei Moon4. 1. College of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: jiyeon.lee@cnu.ac.kr. 2. Graduate School of Public Health, Ajou University, Suwon, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: ehlee@ajou.ac.kr. 3. College of Nursing, Ajou University, Suwon, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: ckimha@ajou.ac.kr. 4. Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: moonseungh@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify all available diabetes-related emotional distress instruments and evaluate the evidence regarding their measurement properties to help in the selection of the most appropriate instrument for use in practice and research. DESIGN: A systematic literature search was performed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched systematically for articles on diabetes-related emotional distress instruments. REVIEW METHODS: The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the identified studies. The quality of results with respect to the measurement properties of each study was evaluated using Terwee's quality criteria. An ancillary meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 2345 articles yielded by the search, 19 full-text articles evaluating 6 diabetes-related emotional distress instruments were included in this study. No instrument demonstrated evidence for all measurement properties. The Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID) was the most frequently studied and the best validated of the instruments. Pooled summary estimates of the correlation coefficient between the PAID and serum glycated hemoglobin revealed a positive but weak correlation. CONCLUSIONS: No diabetes-related emotional distress instrument demonstrated evidence for all measurement properties. No instrument was better than another, although the PAID was the best validated and is thus recommended for use. Further psychometric studies of the diabetes-related emotional distress instruments with rigorous methodologies are required.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify all available diabetes-related emotional distress instruments and evaluate the evidence regarding their measurement properties to help in the selection of the most appropriate instrument for use in practice and research. DESIGN: A systematic literature search was performed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched systematically for articles on diabetes-related emotional distress instruments. REVIEW METHODS: The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the identified studies. The quality of results with respect to the measurement properties of each study was evaluated using Terwee's quality criteria. An ancillary meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 2345 articles yielded by the search, 19 full-text articles evaluating 6 diabetes-related emotional distress instruments were included in this study. No instrument demonstrated evidence for all measurement properties. The Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID) was the most frequently studied and the best validated of the instruments. Pooled summary estimates of the correlation coefficient between the PAID and serum glycated hemoglobin revealed a positive but weak correlation. CONCLUSIONS: No diabetes-related emotional distress instrument demonstrated evidence for all measurement properties. No instrument was better than another, although the PAID was the best validated and is thus recommended for use. Further psychometric studies of the diabetes-related emotional distress instruments with rigorous methodologies are required.
Authors: Ellen B M Elsman; Lidwine B Mokkink; Marlous Langendoen-Gort; Femke Rutters; Joline Beulens; Petra J M Elders; Caroline B Terwee Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2022-06
Authors: Darwin Totesora; Marie Isobelle Ramos-Rivera; Mary Queen Villegas-Florencio; Pia Natalya Reyes-Sia Journal: J ASEAN Fed Endocr Soc Date: 2019-11-10
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Petra J M Elders; Marlous Langendoen-Gort; Ellen B M Elsman; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Amber A van der Heijden; Maartje de Wit; Joline W J Beulens; Lidwine B Mokkink; Femke Rutters Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 5.430