International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Dr Powers, Ms Critchley, Ms Meier)
Park Nicollet Clinic, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Dr Criego, Ms Richter)
Diabetes Educ. 2013 May-Jun;39(3):387-96. doi: 10.1177/0145721713482737. Epub 2013 Apr 1.
This research evaluated the level of influence that having type 1 diabetes (T1DM) has on responses to questions about food choices, eating concerns, dietary restraint, and others that are included on two widely used, validated eating disorder (ED) questionnaires and examined responses to these two questionnaires from patients with T1DM and an eating disorder (ED-T1DM) and an ED-no-diabetes.
An expert panel rated each item on the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Eating Disorders Inventory, version 3 (EDI-3) regarding T1DM level of influence on item interpretation. These questionnaires were completed by 2 matched samples (ED-T1DM, n = 48 and ED-no-diabetes, n = 96); responses were compared between the samples with particular attention to items of high T1DM influence.
The expert panel identified that 50% (19/38) of the items on the EDE-Q and 6.6% (6/91) on the EDI-3 could be highly influenced by having T1DM. Before Bonferroni correction, the 2 groups responded statistically different on 9 out of 38 items on the EDE-Q and 27 out of 91 items on the EDI-3; generally responses were healthier for those with ED-T1DM than ED-no-diabetes. Of these items, on the EDE-Q, 5 were rated high T1DM influence and on the EDI-3, 3 were rated high.
Having T1DM influences responses on ED questionnaires developed for the general population. This influence may be greater when questionnaires focus on eating, weight, and shape and result in misinterpretation of total and subscale scores by even well-trained clinicians. A careful review of individual item responses by the treatment team is warranted.
本研究评估了 1 型糖尿病（T1DM）对广泛使用的两种经过验证的饮食失调症（ED）问卷中关于食物选择、饮食担忧、饮食限制等问题的回答的影响程度，并研究了 T1DM 伴饮食失调症（ED-T1DM）和无糖尿病的 ED 患者对这两种问卷的反应。
一个专家小组对饮食障碍检查问卷（EDE-Q）和饮食障碍量表，第 3 版（EDI-3）上的每个项目进行了评分，以评估 T1DM 对项目解释的影响程度。这两个问卷由两个匹配的样本（ED-T1DM，n=48 和 ED-无糖尿病，n=96）完成；特别关注高 T1DM 影响的项目，对两个样本的反应进行了比较。
专家小组确定，EDE-Q 上的 50%（19/38）和 EDI-3 上的 6.6%（6/91）的项目可能受到 T1DM 的高度影响。未经 Bonferroni 校正，2 组在 EDE-Q 的 38 个项目中有 9 个和 EDI-3 的 91 个项目中有 27 个项目的反应存在统计学差异；通常 ED-T1DM 的反应比 ED-无糖尿病的反应更健康。在这些项目中，EDE-Q 上有 5 个项目被评为高 T1DM 影响，EDI-3 上有 3 个项目被评为高 T1DM 影响。
T1DM 影响针对一般人群开发的 ED 问卷的反应。当问卷侧重于饮食、体重和体型时，这种影响可能更大，即使是训练有素的临床医生也可能对总分和子量表评分产生误解。治疗团队有必要仔细审查每个项目的反应。
