E Holmes-Truscott1,2, F Pouwer3, J Speight4,5,6. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. etruscott@acbrd.org.au. 2. The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. etruscott@acbrd.org.au. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark. 4. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 5. The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. AHP Research, Hornchurch, Essex, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This study aims to examine the operationalisation of 'psychological insulin resistance' (PIR) among people with type 2 diabetes and to identify and critique relevant measures. RECENT FINDINGS: PIR has been operationalised as (1) the assessment of attitudes or beliefs about insulin therapy and (2) hypothetical or actual resistance, or unwillingness, to use to insulin. Five validated PIR questionnaires were identified. None was fully comprehensive of all aspects of PIR, and the rigour and reporting of questionnaire development and psychometric validation varied considerably between measures. Assessment of PIR should focus on the identification of negative and positive attitudes towards insulin use. Actual or hypothetical insulin refusal may be better conceptualised as a potential consequence of PIR, as its assessment overlooks the attitudes that may prevent insulin use. This paper provides guidance on the selection of questionnaires for clinical or research purpose and the development of new, or improvement of existing, questionnaires.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This study aims to examine the operationalisation of 'psychological insulin resistance' (PIR) among people with type 2 diabetes and to identify and critique relevant measures. RECENT FINDINGS: PIR has been operationalised as (1) the assessment of attitudes or beliefs about insulin therapy and (2) hypothetical or actual resistance, or unwillingness, to use to insulin. Five validated PIR questionnaires were identified. None was fully comprehensive of all aspects of PIR, and the rigour and reporting of questionnaire development and psychometric validation varied considerably between measures. Assessment of PIR should focus on the identification of negative and positive attitudes towards insulin use. Actual or hypothetical insulin refusal may be better conceptualised as a potential consequence of PIR, as its assessment overlooks the attitudes that may prevent insulin use. This paper provides guidance on the selection of questionnaires for clinical or research purpose and the development of new, or improvement of existing, questionnaires.
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Norbert Hermanns; Leslie C Lilly; Julia K Mader; Felix Aberer; Anja Ribitsch; Harald Kojzar; Jay Warner; Thomas R Pieber Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-02-09
Authors: Mary E Larkin; Virginia A Capasso; Chien-Lin Chen; Ellen K Mahoney; Barbara Hazard; Enrico Cagliero; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Norbert Hermanns; Marina Mahr; Bernd Kulzer; Sören E Skovlund; Thomas Haak Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Ka Yan Or; Benjamin Hoi-Kei Yip; Chi Hang Lau; Hing Han Chen; Yuk Wah Chan; Kam Pui Lee Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 2.945