The diabetes management experiences questionnaire: Psychometric validation among adults with type 1 diabetes
Christel Hendrieckx,Hanafi M Husin,Sienna Russell-Green,Jennifer A Halliday,Benjamin Lam,Steven Trawley,Sybil A McAuley,Leon A Bach,Morton G Burt,Neale D Cohen,Peter G Colman,D Jane Holmes-Walker,Alicia J Jenkins,Melissa H Lee,Roland W McCallum,Steve N Stranks,Vijaya Sundararajan,Tim W Jones,David N O'Neal,Jane Speight,Australian JDRF Closed-Loop Research Group,Barbora Paldus,Catriona M Sims,Richard J MacIsaac,Glenn M Ward,Kavita Kumareswaran,Stephen N Stranks,Joey Kaye,Jennifer Halliday,Andrzej Januszewski,Anthony C Keech,Sara Vogrin,Hanafi Mohamed Husin,Ben Lam,Philip M Clarke,Timothy W Jones,Elizabeth A Davis,Martin I de Bock,Mary B Abraham,Geoff R Ambler,Fergus J Cameron,Jan M Fairchild,Bruce R King
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15195
Abstract: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 ( α range = 0.74-0.84) and 'Total satisfaction' ( α = 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.