TY - JOUR
T1 - The diabetes management experiences questionnaire
T2 - Psychometric validation among adults with type 1 diabetes
AU - Hendrieckx, Christel
AU - Husin, Hanafi M.
AU - Russell-Green, Sienna
AU - Halliday, Jennifer A.
AU - Lam, Benjamin
AU - Trawley, Steven
AU - McAuley, Sybil A.
AU - Bach, Leon A.
AU - Burt, Morton G.
AU - Cohen, Neale D.
AU - Colman, Peter G.
AU - Holmes-Walker, D. Jane
AU - Jenkins, Alicia J.
AU - Lee, Melissa H.
AU - McCallum, Roland W.
AU - Stranks, Steve N.
AU - Sundararajan, Vijaya
AU - Jones, Tim W.
AU - O'Neal, David N.
AU - Speight, Jane
AU - Australian JDRF Closed-Loop Research Group
AU - Paldus, Barbora
AU - Sims, Catriona M.
AU - MacIsaac, Richard J.
AU - Ward, Glenn M.
AU - Kumareswaran, Kavita
AU - Holmes-Walker, D. Jane
AU - Kaye, Joey
AU - Russell-Green, Sienna
AU - Januszewski, Andrzej
AU - Keech, Anthony C.
AU - Vogrin, Sara
AU - Clarke, Philip M.
AU - Davis, Elizabeth A.
AU - De Bock, Martin I.
AU - Abraham, Mary B.
AU - Ambler, Geoffrey R.
AU - Cameron, Fergus J.
AU - Fairchild, Jan M.
AU - King, Bruce R.
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - Aims: To examine the psychometric properties of the Diabetes Management Experiences Questionnaire (DME-Q). Adapted from the validated Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire, the DME-Q captures satisfaction with diabetes management irrespective of treatment modalities. Methods: The DME-Q was completed by adults with type 1 diabetes as part of a randomized controlled trial comparing hybrid closed loop (HCL) to standard therapy. Most psychometric properties were examined with pre-randomization data (n = 149); responsiveness was examined using baseline and 26-week follow-up data (n = 120). Results: Pre-randomization, participants' mean age was 44 ± 12 years, 52% were women. HbA1c was 61 ± 11 mmol/mol (7.8 ± 1.0%), diabetes duration was 24 ± 12 years and 47% used an insulin pump prior to the trial. A forced three-factor analysis revealed three expected domains, that is, ‘Convenience’, ‘Effectiveness’ and ‘Intrusiveness’, and a forced one-factor solution was also satisfactory. Internal consistency reliability was strong for the three subscales ((Formula presented.) range = 0.74–0.84) and ‘Total satisfaction’ (Formula presented.) = 0.85). Convergent validity was demonstrated with moderate correlations between DME-Q ‘Total satisfaction’ and diabetes distress (PAID: rs = −0.57) and treatment satisfaction (DTSQ; rs = 0.58). Divergent validity was demonstrated with a weak correlation with prospective/retrospective memory (PRMQ: rs = −0.16 and − 0.13 respectively). Responsiveness was demonstrated, as participants randomized to HCL had higher ‘Effectiveness’ and ‘Total satisfaction’ scores than those randomized to standard therapy. Conclusions: The 22-item DME-Q is a brief, acceptable, reliable measure with satisfactory structural and construct validity, which is responsive to intervention. The DME-Q is likely to be useful for evaluation of new pharmaceutical agents and technologies in research and clinical settings.
AB - Aims: To examine the psychometric properties of the Diabetes Management Experiences Questionnaire (DME-Q). Adapted from the validated Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire, the DME-Q captures satisfaction with diabetes management irrespective of treatment modalities. Methods: The DME-Q was completed by adults with type 1 diabetes as part of a randomized controlled trial comparing hybrid closed loop (HCL) to standard therapy. Most psychometric properties were examined with pre-randomization data (n = 149); responsiveness was examined using baseline and 26-week follow-up data (n = 120). Results: Pre-randomization, participants' mean age was 44 ± 12 years, 52% were women. HbA1c was 61 ± 11 mmol/mol (7.8 ± 1.0%), diabetes duration was 24 ± 12 years and 47% used an insulin pump prior to the trial. A forced three-factor analysis revealed three expected domains, that is, ‘Convenience’, ‘Effectiveness’ and ‘Intrusiveness’, and a forced one-factor solution was also satisfactory. Internal consistency reliability was strong for the three subscales ((Formula presented.) range = 0.74–0.84) and ‘Total satisfaction’ (Formula presented.) = 0.85). Convergent validity was demonstrated with moderate correlations between DME-Q ‘Total satisfaction’ and diabetes distress (PAID: rs = −0.57) and treatment satisfaction (DTSQ; rs = 0.58). Divergent validity was demonstrated with a weak correlation with prospective/retrospective memory (PRMQ: rs = −0.16 and − 0.13 respectively). Responsiveness was demonstrated, as participants randomized to HCL had higher ‘Effectiveness’ and ‘Total satisfaction’ scores than those randomized to standard therapy. Conclusions: The 22-item DME-Q is a brief, acceptable, reliable measure with satisfactory structural and construct validity, which is responsive to intervention. The DME-Q is likely to be useful for evaluation of new pharmaceutical agents and technologies in research and clinical settings.
KW - person-reported outcome
KW - psychometric validation
KW - treatment satisfaction
KW - type 1 diabetes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85168659719&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1099379
U2 - 10.1111/dme.15195
DO - 10.1111/dme.15195
M3 - Article
C2 - 37562414
AN - SCOPUS:85168659719
SN - 0742-3071
VL - 41
JO - Diabetic Medicine
JF - Diabetic Medicine
IS - 3
M1 - e15195
ER -
