Meredyth A Evans1, Lindsey E G Weil2, Jenna B Shapiro3, Lindsay M Anderson1, Anthony T Vesco1, Karen Rychlik4, Marisa E Hilliard5, Jeanne Antisdel1, Jill Weissberg-Benchell1. 1. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. 3. Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago. 4. Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Children with type 1 diabetes and their parents face daily self-care demands, leading to diabetes-specific emotional distress. A standardized measure of diabetes distress can guide clinical care and prevent negative outcomes. METHODS: This study evaluated the psychometric properties of child- and parent-report measures of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale, adapted for children ages 8-12 (PAID-C) and their parents (P-PAID-C). Participants were from 42 diabetes camps in the United States. Children (N = 804; mean age = 10.3 ± 1.1) and parents (N = 968) completed measures of diabetes distress, diabetes-related strengths, and self-care skills. Half of the sample was used for exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with direct oblimin rotation and the other half for confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). RESULTS: For the PAID-C, EFA and CFAs supported an 11-item two-factor measure, Cronbach's α = .91, accounting for 54.6% of the variance. For the P-PAID-C, analyses resulted in a 16-item measure, Cronbach's α = .92, accounting for 51.9% of the variance. PAID-C and P-PAID-C scores were positively correlated with HbA1c (rchild = .08, p = .04; rparent = .18, p < .001), and negatively correlated with diabetes-related strengths (rchild = -.38, p < .001, rparent = -.29, p < .001) and parent report of child self-care skills (rparent = -.13, p < .001; rchild = -0.07, p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: Initial psychometrics suggest that the PAID-C and P-PAID-C reliably and validly capture diabetes-specific emotional distress for children and their parents. Associations with glycemic control, self-care, and diabetes strengths demonstrate criterion validity. Both measures have potential applications for routine, clinic-based assessments of diabetes distress and may guide clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVE:Children with type 1 diabetes and their parents face daily self-care demands, leading to diabetes-specific emotional distress. A standardized measure of diabetes distress can guide clinical care and prevent negative outcomes. METHODS: This study evaluated the psychometric properties of child- and parent-report measures of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale, adapted for children ages 8-12 (PAID-C) and their parents (P-PAID-C). Participants were from 42 diabetes camps in the United States. Children (N = 804; mean age = 10.3 ± 1.1) and parents (N = 968) completed measures of diabetes distress, diabetes-related strengths, and self-care skills. Half of the sample was used for exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with direct oblimin rotation and the other half for confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). RESULTS: For the PAID-C, EFA and CFAs supported an 11-item two-factor measure, Cronbach's α = .91, accounting for 54.6% of the variance. For the P-PAID-C, analyses resulted in a 16-item measure, Cronbach's α = .92, accounting for 51.9% of the variance. PAID-C and P-PAID-C scores were positively correlated with HbA1c (rchild = .08, p = .04; rparent = .18, p < .001), and negatively correlated with diabetes-related strengths (rchild = -.38, p < .001, rparent = -.29, p < .001) and parent report of child self-care skills (rparent = -.13, p < .001; rchild = -0.07, p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: Initial psychometrics suggest that the PAID-C and P-PAID-C reliably and validly capture diabetes-specific emotional distress for children and their parents. Associations with glycemic control, self-care, and diabetes strengths demonstrate criterion validity. Both measures have potential applications for routine, clinic-based assessments of diabetes distress and may guide clinical decision-making.
Authors: Deborah J Wiebe; Donna Gelfand; Jorie M Butler; Carolyn Korbel; Katherine T Fortenberry; Jennifer E McCabe; Cynthia A Berg Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2011-02-09
Authors: Jaclyn Tamaroff; Anna DeDio; Kristin Wade; McKenzie Wells; Courtney Park; Karla Leavens; Christian Rummey; Andrea Kelly; David R Lynch; Shana E McCormack Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 8.180
Authors: Richard G McGee; Edward Y B Zhang; Jennifer J G Tan; Aiden C K Cheung; Matthew P Garvey Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 3.263
Authors: Marisa E Hilliard; Charles G Minard; David G Marrero; Maartje de Wit; Stephanie N DuBose; Alandra Verdejo; Sarah S Jaser; Davida Kruger; Roshanak Monzavi; Viral N Shah; R Paul Wadwa; Ruth S Weinstock; Debbe Thompson; Viena T Cao; Barbara J Anderson Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 1.569
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
Authors: Erin C Cobry; Lauren G Kanapka; Eda Cengiz; Lori Carria; Laya Ekhlaspour; Bruce A Buckingham; Korey K Hood; Liana J Hsu; Laurel H Messer; Melissa J Schoelwer; Emma Emory; Katrina J Ruedy; Roy W Beck; Raj Paul Wadwa; Linda Gonder-Frederick Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 7.337