School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden
Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 17;10(11):e038966. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038966.
To study evidence for construct validity, the aim was to describe the outcome from the recently developed Diabetes Questionnaire, assess the associations of that outcome with clinical variables and generic health-related quality of life, and study the sensitivity to differences between clinically relevant groups of glycaemic control in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a nation-wide setting.
Cross-sectional survey.
Swedish diabetes care clinics connected to the National Diabetes Register (NDR).
Among 2479 adults with type 1 diabetes and 2469 with type 2 diabetes selected at random from the NDR, 1373 (55.4%) with type 1 and 1353 (54.8%) with type 2 diabetes chose to participate.
The Diabetes Questionnaire, the generic 36-item Short Form version 2 (SF-36v2) health survey and clinical variables.
Related to the prespecified assumptions, supporting evidence for construct validity for the Diabetes Questionnaire was found. Supporting divergent validity, the statistically significant correlations with the clinical variables were few and weak. In relation to the SF-36v2 and in support of convergent validity, the strongest correlations were seen in the Diabetes Questionnaire scales General Well-being and Mood and Energy. In those scales, machine learning analyses showed that about 40%-45% of the variance was explained by the SF-36v2 results and clinical variables. In multiple regression analyses among three groups with differing levels of glycated haemoglobin adjusted for demographics, other risk factors, and diabetes complications, the high-risk group had, in support of sensitivity to clinically relevant groups, statistically significant lower scores than the well-controlled group in most Diabetes Questionnaire scales.
This nation-wide study shows that the Diabetes Questionnaire captures some generic health-related quality-of-life dimensions, in addition to adding diabetes-specific information not covered by the SF-36v2 and clinical variables. The Diabetes Questionnaire is also sensitive to differences between clinically relevant groups of glycaemic control.
研究构念效度的证据,旨在描述最近开发的糖尿病问卷的结果,评估该结果与临床变量和一般健康相关生活质量的相关性,并研究在全国范围内 1 型和 2 型糖尿病患者中,血糖控制的临床相关组之间差异的敏感性。
横断面调查。
与国家糖尿病登记处(NDR)相连的瑞典糖尿病护理诊所。
从 NDR 中随机选择的 2479 名 1 型糖尿病患者和 2469 名 2 型糖尿病患者中,有 1373 名(55.4%)1 型和 1353 名(54.8%)2 型糖尿病患者选择参与。
糖尿病问卷、通用 36 项简短表格版本 2(SF-36v2)健康调查和临床变量。
与预设假设相关,支持糖尿病问卷的构念效度的证据。支持发散效度,与临床变量的统计学显著相关性很少且很弱。与 SF-36v2 相关,并支持收敛效度,在糖尿病问卷量表一般幸福感和情绪和能量中观察到最强的相关性。在这些量表中,机器学习分析表明,SF-36v2 结果和临床变量解释了约 40%-45%的方差。在调整人口统计学、其他风险因素和糖尿病并发症的三个不同糖化血红蛋白水平组的多元回归分析中,高风险组在支持对临床相关组的敏感性方面,在大多数糖尿病问卷量表中,统计学上显著低于对照组。
这项全国性研究表明,糖尿病问卷除了涵盖 SF-36v2 和临床变量未涵盖的糖尿病特定信息外,还能捕捉一些一般健康相关的生活质量维度。糖尿病问卷也对血糖控制的临床相关组之间的差异敏感。