Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott1, Soren E Skovlund2, Christel Hendrieckx3, Frans Pouwer4, Mark Peyrot5, Jane Speight6. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: etruscott@acbrd.org.au. 2. Steno Diabetes Center North Jutland, Aalborg University Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. Electronic address: soren@sorenskovlund.com. 3. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: chendrieckx@acbrd.org.au. 4. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark. Electronic address: fpouwer@health.sdu.dk. 5. Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark; AHP Research, Hornchurch, Essex, UK. Electronic address: JSpeight@acbrd.org.au.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the validity and reliability of the 6-item DAWN2 Impact of Diabetes Profile (DIDP), and the modified 7-item DIDP, which includes assessment of dietary freedom. METHODS: The online, cross-sectional, Australian MILES-2 survey included the DIDP and other validated measures, to examine convergent, discriminant and known-groups validity. The DIDP was completed by 2207 adults with diabetes (Type 1: n = 1012; Type 2 insulin: n = 504; non-insulin: n = 691). Data were subjected to exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency reliability and univariate statistics, conducted separately by diabetes type/treatment. RESULTS: The DIDP was highly acceptable: 99% completion rate. One-factor solutions were supported for the 6-item and 7-item DIDP scales, in all diabetes type/treatment groups (variance explained range: 6-item: 59-67%, 7-item: 55-62%), with satisfactory internal consistency (α = 0.85-0.90). Known-groups validity was demonstrated, by diabetes type and complications presence/absence, as was satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: The DIDP meets the need for a brief, contemporary, valid and reliable measure of the perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life, suitable for adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The 6-item and 7-item scales have psychometric equivalence. Use of the seventh item can be informed by research questions.
AIMS: To investigate the validity and reliability of the 6-item DAWN2 Impact of Diabetes Profile (DIDP), and the modified 7-item DIDP, which includes assessment of dietary freedom. METHODS: The online, cross-sectional, Australian MILES-2 survey included the DIDP and other validated measures, to examine convergent, discriminant and known-groups validity. The DIDP was completed by 2207 adults with diabetes (Type 1: n = 1012; Type 2 insulin: n = 504; non-insulin: n = 691). Data were subjected to exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency reliability and univariate statistics, conducted separately by diabetes type/treatment. RESULTS: The DIDP was highly acceptable: 99% completion rate. One-factor solutions were supported for the 6-item and 7-item DIDP scales, in all diabetes type/treatment groups (variance explained range: 6-item: 59-67%, 7-item: 55-62%), with satisfactory internal consistency (α = 0.85-0.90). Known-groups validity was demonstrated, by diabetes type and complications presence/absence, as was satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: The DIDP meets the need for a brief, contemporary, valid and reliable measure of the perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life, suitable for adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The 6-item and 7-item scales have psychometric equivalence. Use of the seventh item can be informed by research questions.
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: Julian W Sacre; Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott; Agus Salim; Kaarin J Anstey; Grant R Drummond; Rachel R Huxley; Dianna J Magliano; Peter van Wijngaarden; Paul Z Zimmet; Jane Speight; Jonathan E Shaw Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.213
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
Authors: Melanie Broadley; Hannah Chatwin; Uffe Søholm; Stephanie A Amiel; Jill Carlton; Bastiaan E De Galan; Christel Hendrieckx; Rory J McCrimmon; Søren E Skovlund; Frans Pouwer; Jane Speight Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2022-08
Authors: Patrick Divilly; Natalie Zaremba; Zeinab Mahmoudi; Uffe Søholm; Daniel J Pollard; Melanie Broadley; Evertine J Abbink; Bastiaan de Galan; Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard; Eric Renard; Mark Evans; Jane Speight; Alan Brennan; Rory J McCrimmon; Matthias Müllenborn; Simon Heller; Alexander Seibold; Julia K Mader; Stephanie A Amiel; Frans Pouwer; Pratik Choudhary Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.213