Kenny Eanna, O'Malley Róisín, Roche Kevin, Morrissey Eimear, Dinneen Sean F, Byrne Molly, Casey Bláthín
Health Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Diabet Med. 2021 Apr;38(4):e14468. doi: 10.1111/dme.14468. Epub 2020 Dec 2.
To identify all extant instruments used to measure diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes and to evaluate the evidence for the measurement properties of these instruments.
Medline, Embase, CINAHL plus and PsycINFO were systematically searched from inception up until 12 March 2020 for all publications which evaluated the psychometric properties of diabetes distress measurement instruments. The quality of the methodology and the measurement properties in the identified studies were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.
Seven out of the 7656 articles retrieved in the search were included in the final review. Four diabetes distress measurement instruments were identified, none of which displayed evidence for all measurement properties specified in the COSMIN guidelines. The Problem Areas in Diabetes-11 (PAID-11) demonstrated the best psychometric properties, displaying strong evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing, responsiveness and criterion validity. The Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID) was the most frequently investigated instrument, demonstrating good relevance and hypothesis testing across four studies; however, concerns remain over its factor structure.
The PAID-11 appears to be the most psychometrically sound instrument for measuring diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes, displaying strong evidence for a range of measurement properties. However, as only one study evaluated this instrument and its content validity has yet to be assessed, further validation is warranted. Additional qualitative work is needed to assess the content validity of these instruments among individuals with Type 1 diabetes.
识别所有用于测量 1 型糖尿病成年患者糖尿病困扰的现有工具，并评估这些工具测量特性的证据。
对 Medline、Embase、CINAHL plus 和 PsycINFO 进行系统检索，从创刊至 2020 年 3 月 12 日，查找所有评估糖尿病困扰测量工具心理测量特性的出版物。使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）指南评估所纳入研究的方法质量和测量特性。
检索到的 7656 篇文章中有 7 篇纳入最终综述。识别出四种糖尿病困扰测量工具，其中没有一种工具能证明符合 COSMIN 指南中规定的所有测量特性。糖尿病问题领域-11（PAID-11）表现出最佳的心理测量特性，在结构效度、内部一致性、假设检验、反应性和效标效度方面有充分证据。糖尿病问题领域量表（PAID）是研究最频繁的工具，在四项研究中显示出良好的相关性和假设检验；然而，其因素结构仍存在问题。
PAID-11 似乎是测量 1 型糖尿病成年患者糖尿病困扰最具心理测量学依据的工具，在一系列测量特性方面有充分证据。然而，由于仅有一项研究评估了该工具，且其内容效度尚未评估，因此需要进一步验证。还需要开展额外的定性研究，以评估这些工具在 1 型糖尿病患者中的内容效度。
Zotero 插件