Development of a New Measure for Assessing Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

被引:32
作者
Polonsky, William H. [2 ,3 ]
Fisher, Lawrence [4 ]
Hessler, Danielle [4 ]
Edelman, Steven V. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Div Endocrinol & Metab, San Diego, CA USA
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103 USA
[3] Behav Diabet Inst, San Diego, CA USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, San Diego, CA 92161 USA
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; INSTRUMENT; DISTRESS; ADULTS;
D O I
10.1089/dia.2015.0140
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Although many different types of insulin delivery devices are currently available, there is no well-accepted, validated method to assess patient satisfaction with these devices and their impact on quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes. To address this problem, we developed the Insulin Device Satisfaction Survey (IDSS) and herein describe its construction and validation. We then examine how key patient factors are associated with device satisfaction. Materials and Methods: Items were developed from interviews with adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (n=10) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) using insulin (n=10), as well as eight healthcare professionals, leading to an initial pool of 32 items. Separate exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted with T1D subjects (n=279) and insulin-using T2D subjects (n=209). Construct validity was established with overall well-being (World Health Organization-5), diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale), diabetes self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Diabetes Management Scale), and subscales from the Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire. Regression analyses examined associations between total scale satisfaction and demographics, insulin adherence, clinical indicators, and device type (pump vs. nonpump users). Results: The two EFAs resulted in a 14-item scale for T1D subjects and a 12-item scale for T2D subjects, with eight items common across both samples. The EFAs yielded three coherent, meaningful factors in each sample, accounting for 55.6% (T1D sample) and 64.1% (T2D sample) of the variance. Validity was established by significant correlations with all criterion variables. For both samples, higher IDSS scores were significantly associated with better glycemic control and greater insulin adherence and pump use. For T2D subjects only, IDDS scores were significantly linked to fewer long-term complications, fewer low blood glucose readings, and older age. Conclusions: The IDSS is a reliable, valid measure of insulin device satisfaction in both its T1D form and T2 form. It provides a comprehensive profile of sources of device satisfaction for use in clinical care and research.
引用
收藏
页码:773 / 779
页数:7
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   Development and validation of the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire [J].
Anderson, RT ;
Skovlund, SE ;
Marrero, D ;
Levine, DW ;
Meadows, K ;
Brod, M ;
Balkrishnan, R .
CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2004, 26 (04) :565-578
[2]  
Barnett A H., 1996, Pract Diabetes Int, V13, P179
[3]   Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device) [J].
Brod, Meryl ;
Hammer, Mette ;
Christensen, Torsten ;
Lessard, Suzanne ;
Bushnell, Donald M. .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2009, 7 :83
[4]   Understanding the sources of diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes [J].
Fisher, Lawrence ;
Polonsky, William H. ;
Hessler, Danielle M. ;
Masharani, Umesh ;
Blumer, Ian ;
Peters, Anne L. ;
Strycker, Lisa A. ;
Bowyer, Vicky .
JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS, 2015, 29 (04) :572-577
[5]   Psychometric and screening properties of the WHO-5 well-being index in adult outpatients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus [J].
Hajos, T. R. S. ;
Pouwer, F. ;
Skovlund, S. E. ;
Den Oudsten, B. L. ;
Geelhoed-Duijvestijn, P. H. L. M. ;
Tack, C. J. ;
Snoek, F. J. .
DIABETIC MEDICINE, 2013, 30 (02) :E63-E69
[6]   Patient age: A neglected factor when considering disease management in adults with type 2 diabetes [J].
Hessler, Danielle M. ;
Fisher, Lawrence ;
Mullan, Joseph T. ;
Glasgow, Russell E. ;
Masharani, Umesh .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2011, 85 (02) :154-159
[7]   Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and diabetes self-management in adolescents with type 1 diabetes [J].
Iannotti, RJ ;
Schneider, S ;
Nansel, TR ;
Haynie, DL .
JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL PEDIATRICS, 2006, 27 (02) :98-105
[8]  
Kim M T, 2000, Prog Cardiovasc Nurs, V15, P90, DOI 10.1111/j.1751-7117.2000.tb00211.x
[9]   Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Insulin Pen Devices Versus Conventional Vial and Syringe [J].
Molife, Cliff ;
Lee, Lauren J. ;
Shi, Lizheng ;
Sawhney, Monika ;
Lenox, Sheila M. .
DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2009, 11 (08) :529-538
[10]   Quality of life and treatment satisfaction in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a comparison between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injections [J].
Nicolucci, A. ;
Maione, A. ;
Franciosi, M. ;
Amoretti, R. ;
Busetto, E. ;
Capani, F. ;
Bruttomesso, D. ;
Di Bartolo, P. ;
Girelli, A. ;
Leonetti, F. ;
Morviducci, L. ;
Ponzi, P. ;
Vitacolonna, E. .
DIABETIC MEDICINE, 2008, 25 (02) :213-220