Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress on clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Person-reported outcomes in diabetes care: What are they and why are they so important?

In this review, we aim to show how person-reported outcomes (PROs) and person-reported experiences (PREs) can significantly contribute to the way diabetes care is delivered, the involvement of people with diabetes in diabetes care, and the collaboration between health care professionals and people with diabetes. This review focuses on the definition and measurement of PROs and PREs, the importance of PROs and PREs for person-centred diabetes care, and integrating the perspectives of people with diabetes in the evaluation of medical, psychological and technological interventions. PROs have been increasingly accepted by Health Technology Assessment bodies and are therefore valued in the context of reimbursement decisions and consequently by regulators and other health care stakeholders for the allocation of health care resources. Furthermore, the review identified current challenges to the assessment and use of PROs and PREs in clinical care and research. These challenges relate to the combination of questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment for measuring PROs and PREs, lack of consensus on a core outcome set, limited sensitivity to change within many measures and insufficient standardization of what can be considered a minimal clinically important difference. Another issue that has not been sufficiently addressed is the involvement of people with diabetes in the design and development of measures to assess PROs and PREs.

Prevalence and Correlators of Diabetes Distress in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To address the prevalence of diabetes distress (DD) and its correlators in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Patients and Methods

During 2021 and 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study in three Class A tertiary comprehensive hospitals in China, and received 947 participants who completed a printed survey covering DD, demographic, diabetic, physiological, and psychosocial factors. We used Jonckheere-Terpstra, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests to assess intergroup differences between different levels of DD. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to analyze correlators of DD further.

Results

The prevalence of DD was 34.64%. In univariate analysis, those with lower satisfaction with financial status, longer durations of diabetes, more complications, higher glycemia, more severe insomnia, treatment by medications only, poorer lifestyle interventions, fewer self-care activities, more types and frequencies of insulin injections, and spending more money and time on treatment were susceptible to DD. Type D personality, negative illness perceptions, negative coping styles, and psychological effects of major life events were related to higher DD. Hope, self-efficacy, positive coping styles, and social support can reduce DD. In ordinal logistic regression analysis, hypoglycemic episode (β=-1.118, p=0.019, "have hypoglycemic" as reference) and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (β=0.090, p<0.001) were significant positive correlators for DD, while diet intervention (β=0.803, p=0.022, "have diet intervention" as reference), money spent on diabetes treatment (β<-0.001, p=0.035), and SES (β=-0.257, p<0.001) were significant negative correlators.

Conclusion

More than one-third of Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes experience moderate or high levels of DD. DD was associated with financial, diabetic, physiological, and psychosocial status.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Translation and localization the Persian version of diabetes distress scale among type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The aimed of this psychometric cross-sectional research was translation and localization the Persian version of diabetes distress scale in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This psychometric cross-sectional research was translation and localization the Persian version of diabetes distress scale among 1028 type 2 diabetes in Mashhad city, Iran, 2022. Cluster sampling method was used for selection the participants. The validity and reliability of diabetes distress scale designed and evaluated by Polonsky was assessed in this study. The validity of diabetes distress scale was evaluated by face validity, content validity, and structural validity. Twenty-six type 2 diabetes were selected for evaluation the reliability of scale.

RESULTS

The factor loading of all questions of diabetes distress scale were more than 0.4 and the results of goodness-of-fit indexes showed acceptable values (for example: RMSEA = 0.076, IFI = 0.909, AGFI = 0.819, PNFI = 0.758). Cronbach's alpha coefficient, McDonald omega coefficient and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) showed a value of 0.950, 0.955, and 0.903, respectively for all items of diabetes distress scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficient, McDonald omega coefficient and ICC showed a value of 0.914, 0.917, and 0.893, respectively for Core Level of Distress (8 items). Also, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, McDonald omega coefficient, and ICC showed a value of 0.920, 0.928, and 0.884, respectively for all factors of Sources of Distress (21 items).

CONCLUSION

The Persian form of diabetes distress scale with 29 items and two parts of Core Level of Distress with 8 items and Sources of Distress with 21 items and 7 factors (Hypoglycemia with 3 items, Long-term Health with 3 items, Healthcare Provider with 3 items, Interpersonal Issues with 3 items, Shame/Stigma with 3 items, Healthcare Access with 3 items, and Management Demands with 3 items) is a good scale to evaluation the status of diabetes distress in Iranian type 2 diabetes.

Validity of the short-form five-item Problem Area in Diabetes questionnaire as a depression screening tool in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Depression is prevalent in diabetes patients and associated with poor outcomes, but is currently underdiagnosed, with no firm consensus on screening methods. We evaluated the validity of the short-form five-item Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-5) questionnaire as a screening tool for depression, comparing it with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 208 English-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes, recruited from outpatient clinics, completed the BDI-II, PHQ-9 and PAID-5 questionnaires in English. Cronbach's α was used for internal reliability. Convergent validity was examined with BDI-II and PHQ-9. Receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to identify optimal PAID-5 cut-offs for the diagnosis of depression.

RESULTS

All three screening tools were highly reliable, with BDI-II, PHQ-9 and PAID-5 having a Cronbach's α of 0.910, 0.870 and 0.940, respectively. There was a good correlation between BDI-II and PHQ-9, with a correlation co-efficient (r) of 0.73; and a moderate correlation between PAID-5 and PHQ-9, and PAID-5 and BDI-II, with r of 0.55 and 0.55 respectively (P values <0.01). An optimal PAID-5 cut-off ≥9 corresponded to both a BDI-II cut-off >14 (sensitivity 72%, specificity 784%, area under the curve 0.809) and a PHQ-9 cut-off >10 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 74%, area under the curve 0.806). Using a PAID-5 cut-off ≥9, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 36.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressive symptoms are prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes, with the degree of distress significantly related to the severity of depressive symptoms. PAID-5 is a valid and reliable screening tool, and a score ≥9 could prompt further confirmation for depression.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Diabetes-related distress and associated factors among adults with diabetes in Germany: Results of the nationwide study "Disease knowledge and information needs - Diabetes mellitus 2017"

BACKGROUND

Diabetes-related distress (DRD) can affect diabetes management adversely. In lack of population-based data, the frequency and determinants of DRD among adults with diabetes in Germany remain controversial.

METHODS

This study included 1367 adults with diabetes who participated in a nationwide health telephone survey conducted among German adults aged 18 years and older in 2017. The short form of the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-5) scale was used to assess DRD. The associations of high DRD (PAID-5 sum score ≥ 8) with socio-demographics, diabetes-related risk factors, diabetes clinical characteristics as well as quality of self-care and chronic illness care assessed by patients were tested in multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The overall DRD prevalence was 15.1% (95% confidence intervals, 95% CIs, 12.5-18.0%) with no significant difference between men (14.7%, 95% CIs 11.2-19.1%) and women (15.4%, 11.9-19.8%). In multivariable analyses, DRD was significantly associated with younger age (odds ratio 0.96, 95% CIs 0.94-0.98, per year), immigration background (2.26, 1.16-4.42), current smoking (2.06, 1.14-3.70), insulin use (2.57, 1.45-4.56), and the presence of diabetes-specific complications (1.80, 1.10-2.94) or depressive symptoms (5.34, 3.24-8.81). Among those with depressive symptoms (18,4% of the study population), 38.3% also had DRD, which accounted for 7.0% (95% CIs 5.3-9.3%) of the study population.

CONCLUSION

DRD is a common health problem among adults with diabetes in Germany, and highly correlates with depressive symptoms, current smoking, immigration background, and insulin use. Addressing DRD needs to become an integrative part of ambulatory diabetes care.

People with type 2 diabetes' experiences of emotional support in Australian general practice: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Diabetes distress, experienced by up to 40% of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), is the negative emotional response to the burden of living with and managing diabetes. It is associated with suboptimal glycaemia and diabetes self-management. Research indicates that people with diabetes do not recall being asked about emotional distress by healthcare professionals.

AIM

To explore the experiences, needs, and expectations of people with T2D regarding emotional support received in Australian general practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

Exploratory qualitative study in Victoria, Australia.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to explore emotional health and support received in general practice in 12 adults with T2D who primarily attend general practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the framework approach.

RESULTS

The following three major themes were identified: (1) Beneath the surface of diabetes care; (2) Importance of GP-patient relationship; and (3) Communication counts. Participants experienced diabetes care as focused primarily on medical management rather than the emotional aspects of living with T2D. While people's experiences of diabetes care in general practice primarily focused on physical health, the GP care beyond the presenting complaint has an essential role in identifying emotional issues and enabling support. Emotional issues were more likely to be discussed and acknowledged by the GP where there was a long-standing relationship between GP and patient.

CONCLUSION

Pre-existing positive GP-patient relationships and supportive communication enable people with 2TD to raise emotional issues as part of diabetes care.

Assessing and addressing diabetes distress among adults with type 2 diabetes: An online survey of Australian general practitioners

AIM

Diabetes distress is experienced by up to 36% of adults with type 2 diabetes. Australian type 2 diabetes guidelines recommend annual assessment of diabetes distress in general practice. This study explores general practitioners' knowledge, current practice, and factors influencing implementation of guidelines, including Person Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) use.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was disseminated via e-mail to 4776 Australian general practitioners listed on the Australasian Medical Publishing Company database.

RESULTS

264 (5%) surveys were returned. 75% indicated that general practitioners were the most appropriate professionals to assess diabetes distress. Sixteen percent reported asking about diabetes distress during type 2 diabetes consultations more than half the time, with 13% using a PROM more than half the time: 64% use the Kessler-10, and 1.9% use the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale. While general practitioners had positive beliefs about the consequences of assessing and addressing diabetes distress, they also reported barriers in motivation, environment, and knowledge of guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents endorsed general practitioners' role in assessing diabetes distress, but few ask about or assess diabetes distress in routine consultations. To support uptake of guideline recommendations for diabetes-specific PROM use, environmental factors, specifically time, need to be addressed.