Andreas Schmitt1, André Reimer2, Bernhard Kulzer3, Andrea Icks4, Rainer Paust5, Klaus-Martin Roelver6, Matthias Kaltheuner7, Dominic Ehrmann8, Michael Krichbaum8, Thomas Haak8, Norbert Hermanns3. 1. Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DZM), Theodor-Klotzbuecher-Str. 12, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1, 85764 Muenchen, Neuherberg, Germany. Electronic address: schmitt@diabetes-zentrum.de. 2. Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DZM), Theodor-Klotzbuecher-Str. 12, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1, 85764 Muenchen, Neuherberg, Germany. 3. Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DZM), Theodor-Klotzbuecher-Str. 12, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1, 85764 Muenchen, Neuherberg, Germany; Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Department for Psychology, Markusplatz 3, 96047 Bamberg, Germany. 4. German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1, 85764 Muenchen, Neuherberg, Germany; German Diabetes Center (DDZ), Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Auf'm Hennekamp 65, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany; Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany. 5. Institute for Psychosocial Medicine, Elisabeth-Hospital, Klara-Kopp-Weg 1, 45138 Essen, Germany. 6. Diabetes Center Quakenbrueck, Christian Hospital Quakenbrueck, Danziger Str. 2, 49610 Quakenbrueck, Germany. 7. Specialised Diabetes Practice Leverkusen, Kalkstr. 117, 51377 Leverkusen, Germany. 8. Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DZM), Theodor-Klotzbuecher-Str. 12, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: To develop a psychometric measure of diabetes acceptance. METHODS: An item pool was developed and pilot-tested using a sample of 220 people with diabetes; item selection resulted in the 20-item 'Diabetes Acceptance Scale (DAS)'. 606 people with diabetes were then cross-sectionally assessed with the DAS to evaluate its reliability, validity and clinical utility; concurrent measurements included diabetes-related coping (FQCI), diabetes distress (PAID-5), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), quality of life (EQ-5D), self-management (DSMQ), glycaemic control (HbA1c) and complications. RESULTS: Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's α = 0.96). Factorial and criterion-related results supported validity. Higher diabetes acceptance scores correlated with more functional coping styles, lower distress and depression levels, higher treatment adherence, better glycaemic control and better quality of life (all P < .001). Persons with low diabetes acceptance (22% of the sample) were four times more likely to have HbA1c values over 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), two times more likely to be diagnosed with long-term complications and each over two times more likely to have had episodes of severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis in the past year; the prevalence of major depression in this group was fivefold increased (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The DAS is a reliable and valid tool to measure diabetes acceptance. It may help identify patients with significant problems of accepting diabetes, a putative high-risk group in need of tailored care and support.
AIMS: To develop a psychometric measure of diabetes acceptance. METHODS: An item pool was developed and pilot-tested using a sample of 220 people with diabetes; item selection resulted in the 20-item 'Diabetes Acceptance Scale (DAS)'. 606 people with diabetes were then cross-sectionally assessed with the DAS to evaluate its reliability, validity and clinical utility; concurrent measurements included diabetes-related coping (FQCI), diabetes distress (PAID-5), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), quality of life (EQ-5D), self-management (DSMQ), glycaemic control (HbA1c) and complications. RESULTS: Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's α = 0.96). Factorial and criterion-related results supported validity. Higher diabetes acceptance scores correlated with more functional coping styles, lower distress and depression levels, higher treatment adherence, better glycaemic control and better quality of life (all P < .001). Persons with low diabetes acceptance (22% of the sample) were four times more likely to have HbA1c values over 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), two times more likely to be diagnosed with long-term complications and each over two times more likely to have had episodes of severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis in the past year; the prevalence of major depression in this group was fivefold increased (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The DAS is a reliable and valid tool to measure diabetes acceptance. It may help identify patients with significant problems of accepting diabetes, a putative high-risk group in need of tailored care and support.
Authors: Teresa Rivas; Mónica Carreira; Marta Domínguez-López; Maria Soledad Ruiz de Adana; María Teresa Anarte Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2020-04-16
Authors: Grażyna Iwanowicz-Palus; Marta Zarajczyk; Beata Pięta; Agnieszka Bień Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: K Hamilton; S H Stanton-Fay; P M Chadwick; F Lorencatto; N de Zoysa; C Gianfrancesco; C Taylor; E Coates; J P Breckenridge; D Cooke; S R Heller; S Michie Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 4.359