Kathryn Dennick1, Jackie Sturt2, Jane Speight3. 1. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Kings College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK. Electronic address: k.dennick@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Kings College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK. 3. School of Psychology, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioral Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, 570 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia; AHP Research, 16 Walden Way, Hornchurch, Essex, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes distress is the negative emotional impact of living with diabetes. It has tangible clinical importance, being associated with sub-optimal self-care and glycemic control. Diabetes distress has been operationalized in various ways and several measures exist. Measurement clarity is needed for both scientific and clinical reasons. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the conceptualization and operationalization of diabetes distress, identify and distinguish relevant measures, and evaluate their appropriateness for this purpose. RESULTS: Six measures were identified: Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS); Type I Diabetes Distress Scale (T1-DDS), Diabetes-specific Quality of Life Scale-Revised (DSQoLs-R) 'Burden and Restrictions-Daily Hassles' sub-scale, Well-being Questionnaire 28 (W-BQ 28) 'Diabetes Well-being' sub-scale, and Illness Perceptions Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R) 'Emotional Representations' sub-scale. Across these measures a broad spectrum of diabetes distress is captured, including distress associated with treatment regimen, food/eating, future/complications, hypoglycemia, social/interpersonal relationships, and healthcare professionals. No single measure appears fully comprehensive. Limited detail of the qualitative work informing scale design is reported, raising concerns about content validity. CONCLUSIONS: Across the available measures diabetes distress is seemingly comprehensively assessed and measures should be considered in terms of their focus and scope to ensure the foci of interventions are appropriately targeted.
BACKGROUND:Diabetes distress is the negative emotional impact of living with diabetes. It has tangible clinical importance, being associated with sub-optimal self-care and glycemic control. Diabetes distress has been operationalized in various ways and several measures exist. Measurement clarity is needed for both scientific and clinical reasons. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the conceptualization and operationalization of diabetes distress, identify and distinguish relevant measures, and evaluate their appropriateness for this purpose. RESULTS: Six measures were identified: Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS); Type I Diabetes Distress Scale (T1-DDS), Diabetes-specific Quality of Life Scale-Revised (DSQoLs-R) 'Burden and Restrictions-Daily Hassles' sub-scale, Well-being Questionnaire 28 (W-BQ 28) 'Diabetes Well-being' sub-scale, and Illness Perceptions Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R) 'Emotional Representations' sub-scale. Across these measures a broad spectrum of diabetes distress is captured, including distress associated with treatment regimen, food/eating, future/complications, hypoglycemia, social/interpersonal relationships, and healthcare professionals. No single measure appears fully comprehensive. Limited detail of the qualitative work informing scale design is reported, raising concerns about content validity. CONCLUSIONS: Across the available measures diabetes distress is seemingly comprehensively assessed and measures should be considered in terms of their focus and scope to ensure the foci of interventions are appropriately targeted.
Authors: Inmaculada Guerrero Fernández de Alba; Antonio Gimeno-Miguel; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Luis Andrés Gimeno-Feliu; Ignatios Ioakeim-Skoufa; Gemma Rojo-Martínez; Maria João Forjaz; Alexandra Prados-Torres Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Marta Lopez-Herranz; Rodrigo Jiménez-García; Zichen Ji; Javier de Miguel-Diez; David Carabantes-Alarcon; Clara Maestre-Miquel; José J Zamorano-León; Ana López-de-Andrés Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alun Jackson; Michelle Rogerson; Michael Le Grande; David Thompson; Chantal Ski; Marlies Alvarenga; John Amerena; Rosemary Higgins; Michela Raciti; Barbara M Murphy Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 2.692