Virginia Hagger1,2, Christel Hendrieckx3,2, Fergus Cameron4, Frans Pouwer5, Timothy C Skinner6,7, Jane Speight3,2,8. 1. Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia vhagger@acbrd.org.au. 2. The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. 4. Royal Children's Hospital and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 6. School of Psychological and Clinical Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. 7. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Applied Health Psychology Research, Hornchurch, Essex, U.K.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish cut point(s) for the Problem Areas in Diabetes-teen version (PAID-T) scale to identify adolescents with clinically meaningful, elevated diabetes distress. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were available from the Diabetes Management and Impact for Long-term Empowerment and Success (MILES) Youth-Australia Study, a national survey assessing various psychosocial indicators among self-selected National Diabetes Services Scheme registrants. Participants in the current study (n = 537) were (mean ± SD) 16 ± 2 years old, had type 1 diabetes for 6 ± 4 years, and 62% (n = 334) were girls. They completed measures of diabetes distress (PAID-T) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents) and self-reported their most recent HbA1c and frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Relationships between the PAID-T and the psychological and clinical variables were examined to identify a clinically meaningful threshold for elevated diabetes distress. ANOVA was used to test whether these variables differed by levels of distress. RESULTS: Two cut points distinguished none-to-mild (<70), moderate (70-90), and high (>90) diabetes distress. Moderate distress was experienced by 18% of adolescents and high distress by 36%. Mean depressive symptoms, self-reported HbA1c, and SMBG differed significantly across the three levels of diabetes distress (all P < 0.001), with moderate-to-large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Using the PAID-T, this study defined two clinically meaningful cut points to distinguish none-to-mild, moderate, and high diabetes distress in adolescents (aged 13-19). Based on these cut points, most respondents experienced at least moderate diabetes distress, which was clinically significant. Establishing thresholds for elevated diabetes distress will aid clinicians and researchers to interpret PAID-T scores, prompt discussion and intervention for those with unmet needs, and enable the effectiveness of interventions to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To establish cut point(s) for the Problem Areas in Diabetes-teen version (PAID-T) scale to identify adolescents with clinically meaningful, elevated diabetes distress. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were available from the Diabetes Management and Impact for Long-term Empowerment and Success (MILES) Youth-Australia Study, a national survey assessing various psychosocial indicators among self-selected National Diabetes Services Scheme registrants. Participants in the current study (n = 537) were (mean ± SD) 16 ± 2 years old, had type 1 diabetes for 6 ± 4 years, and 62% (n = 334) were girls. They completed measures of diabetes distress (PAID-T) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents) and self-reported their most recent HbA1c and frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Relationships between the PAID-T and the psychological and clinical variables were examined to identify a clinically meaningful threshold for elevated diabetes distress. ANOVA was used to test whether these variables differed by levels of distress. RESULTS: Two cut points distinguished none-to-mild (<70), moderate (70-90), and high (>90) diabetes distress. Moderate distress was experienced by 18% of adolescents and high distress by 36%. Mean depressive symptoms, self-reported HbA1c, and SMBG differed significantly across the three levels of diabetes distress (all P < 0.001), with moderate-to-large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Using the PAID-T, this study defined two clinically meaningful cut points to distinguish none-to-mild, moderate, and high diabetes distress in adolescents (aged 13-19). Based on these cut points, most respondents experienced at least moderate diabetes distress, which was clinically significant. Establishing thresholds for elevated diabetes distress will aid clinicians and researchers to interpret PAID-T scores, prompt discussion and intervention for those with unmet needs, and enable the effectiveness of interventions to be evaluated.
Authors: J J Wong; A Addala; D Naranjo; K K Hood; E Cengiz; M K Ginley; R S Feinn; J A Wagner Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Robert P Hoffman; Cecilia P Damilano; K Ming Chan Hong; Bethany A Glick; Manmohan K Kamboj Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Shekhar Sehgal; Martin De Bock; Jonathan Williman; Barry Taylor; Mona Elbalshy; Barbara Galland; Rosemary Hall; Ryan Paul; Alisa Boucsein; Shirley Jones; Carla Frewen; Benjamin J Wheeler Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2021-10-31
Authors: Rachel M Wasserman; Sahar S Eshtehardi; Barbara J Anderson; Jill A Weissberg-Benchell; Marisa E Hilliard Journal: Can J Diabetes Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 2.774