Assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life: what have the past 25 years taught us?

Over the past 25 years, there has been significant acknowledgement of the importance of assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life. Yet, despite the development of several diabetes-specific quality of life measures, the challenges we faced in 1995 remain. There is little consensus on the definition of quality of life because of the complexity and subjectivity of the concept. General quality of life comprises several domains of life, and these are highly individualized. Assessing the impact of diabetes on these life domains adds to the complexity. While comprehensive diabetes-specific quality-of-life measures typically increase respondent burden, brief questionnaires may not capture all relevant/important domains. Today, the lack of resolution of these challenges may explain why the impact of diabetes on quality of life is not systematically assessed in research or clinical care. Few researchers report detailed rationales for assessment, there is often a mismatch between the concept of interest and the measure selected, and data are misinterpreted as assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life when, in reality, related but distinct constructs have been assessed, such as diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction or health status. While significant efforts are being made to increase routine monitoring of psychological well-being and understand the lived experience, no guidelines currently recommend routine clinical assessment of diabetes-specific quality of life, and there is no consensus on which questionnaire(s) to use. The gaps identified in this review need urgent attention, starting with recognition that assessment of diabetes-specific quality of life is as important as biomedical markers, if we are to improve the lives of people with diabetes.

Targets and teamwork: Understanding differences in pediatric diabetes centers treatment outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The reason for center differences in metabolic control of childhood diabetes is still unknown. We sought to determine to what extent the targets, expectations, and goals that diabetes care professionals have for their patients is a determinant of center differences in metabolic outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Children, under the age of 11 with type 1 diabetes and their parents treated at the study centers participated. Clinical, medical, and demographic data were obtained, along with blood sample for centralized assay. Parents and all members of the diabetes care team completed questionnaires on treatment targets for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and recommended frequency of blood glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

Totally 1113 (53% male) children (mean age 8.0 ± 2.1 years) from 18 centers in 17 countries, along with parents and 113 health-care professionals, participated. There were substantial differences in mean HbA1c between centers ranging from 7.3 ± 0.8% (53 mmol/mol ± 8.7) to 8.9 ± 1.1% (74 mmol/mol ± 12.0). Centers with lower mean HbA1c had (1) parents who reported lower targets for their children, (2) health-care professionals that reported lower targets and more frequent testing, and (3) teams with less disagreement about recommended targets. Multiple regression analysis indicated that teams reporting higher HbA1c targets and more target disagreement had parents reporting higher treatment targets. This seemed to partially account for center differences in Hb1Ac.

CONCLUSIONS

The diabetes care teams' cohesiveness and perspectives on treatment targets, expectations, and recommendations have an influence on parental targets, contributing to the differences in pediatric diabetes center outcomes.

Deficiencies in postgraduate training for healthcare professionals who provide diabetes education and support: results from the Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study

AIMS

To consider the global provision of self-management diabetes education and training for healthcare professionals using data from the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study.

METHODS

A total of 4785 healthcare professionals caring for people with diabetes were surveyed in 17 countries to assess diabetes healthcare provision, self-management support and training.

RESULTS

Of the healthcare professionals surveyed, 33.5% received formal postgraduate training in self-management (19.3-51.4% across countries) and 62.9% received training for medical management of diabetes (47.6-70.6% variation). Training in psychological management was low (19.1%), ranging from 3.6 to 36.5%, while 20.4% (a range of 3.6-36.4% across countries) had received no postgraduate training. Overall, the greatest training need was in the management of psychological aspects of diabetes (59.5%). For some, training in a domain was positively associated with a perceived need for further training. Communication skills, for example, listening (76.9%) and encouraging questions (76.1%), were the skills most widely used. Discussion of emotional issues was limited; 31-60% of healthcare professionals across the different countries reported that this only occurred if initiated by patients. Approximately two-thirds of participants reported a need for major improvements in emotional/psychological support, but few had received training in this area, with consistent findings across professional affiliations.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that healthcare professionals report being insufficiently equipped to provide diabetes self-management education, including emotional and psychological aspects of diabetes, and many are not receiving postgraduate training in any part (including medical care) of the management of diabetes. It is paramount that those responsible for the continuing professional development of healthcare professionals address this skills gap.

Patient Perception and Use of an Insulin Injector/Glucose Monitor Combined Device

PURPOSE

This clinical trial assessed patient preference, satisfaction, and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combination device versus syringes and a separate glucose monitor.

METHODS

In a randomized, multicenter, 2-period crossover study, 15 patients with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use either a combined injector/monitor device or syringes, a vial, and a separate glucose monitor, then switched to the alternate treatment. Efficacy, safety, preference, satisfaction, and actual use (via meter download) of the 2 systems were compared.

RESULTS

Most of the patients preferred using the combination device to syringes and a separate meter. Results from the Handling of Delivery Systems questionnaire given at the end of the study indicated that 49% of patients felt they tested their blood glucose more often with the combination device than with a separate meter. A higher frequency of daily monitoring was reported with the combination device in patients overall (approximately 1 more reading per week). However, a large subset of patients (32%) showed substantial increases in their frequency of daily glucose monitoring (an average of 1 additional reading per day).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the combination device was associated with significant improvements in patient treatment satisfaction.

Assessing diabetes-related quality of life of youth with type 1 diabetes in routine clinical care: the MIND Youth Questionnaire (MY-Q)

AIM

It is recommended to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in teenagers with diabetes as part of their ongoing medical care. Here, we describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the Monitoring Individual Needs in Diabetes Youth Questionnaire (MY-Q), a multi-dimensional self-report HRQoL questionnaire designed for use in pediatric diabetes care.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In expert meetings, characteristics and domains of interest were defined. Existing questionnaires were reviewed, topics selected, and new items added, resulting in the 36-item MY-Q. To test face validity, we interviewed 22 teenagers. In addition, 84 teenagers with type 1 diabetes (age 10-18 yr) completed the MY-Q and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) generic and diabetes-modules to examine psychometric properties. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values were obtained by chart audit.

RESULTS

The MY-Q consists of seven subscales (social impact, parents, diabetes control perceptions, responsibility, worries, treatment satisfaction, and body image and eating behavior) as well as general HRQoL and emotional well-being. Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.80. Strong correlations between MY-Q total and PedsQL generic and diabetes-module scores (r = 0.58 and r = 0.71, p < 0.001) confirmed concurrent validity. Higher HbA1c was associated with lower diabetes control perceptions (r = -0.35, p = 0.001), worries (r = -0.24, p = 0.029), and body image and eating behavior (r = -0.26, p = 0.019) scores. Younger age was associated with higher diabetes control perceptions (r = -0.26, p = 0.020) and body image and eating behavior (r = -0.23, p = .038), and lower responsibility (r = 0.25, p = 0.027) scores.

CONCLUSION

The MY-Q is the first HRQoL questionnaire designed for use in clinical care. It has acceptable measurement properties and seems suitable for implementation in routine care of teenagers with diabetes.

Short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID)-5 and PAID-1

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We wanted to identify a five-item short form of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and a single-item measure for rapid screening of diabetes-related emotional distress.

METHODS

Using an existing database of 1,153 patients with diabetes, we conducted a principal-components analysis to identify a set of five items and then conducted a reliability analysis and validity checks. From those five items, we identified the item with the strongest psychometric properties as a one-item screening tool.

RESULTS

We identified a reliable and valid short version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) comprising five of the emotional-distress questions of the full PAID items (PAID-5, with items 3, 6, 12, 16, 19). The PAID-5 has satisfactory sensitivity (94%) and specificity (89%) for recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. We also identified a one-item screening tool, the PAID-1 (Question 12: Worrying about the future and the possibility of serious complications), which has concurrent sensitivity and specificity of about 80% for the recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The PAID-5 and PAID-1 appear to be psychometrically robust short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress.

Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe

InnoLet is a disposable insulin injection device with a large easy-to-read dial, large push button for injection, and audible clicks for each unit injected. This clinical trial assessed patient preference, satisfaction, and utilization of healthcare resources (estimated nursing care) for InnoLet and vial/syringe. Patients with diabetes mellitus (N=79, mean age 68.2+/-8.6 years, duration of diabetes 16.5+/-10.9 years) having visual and/or motor disabilities and having difficulty (or required caregiver assistance) for previous injections by vial/syringe were randomized to use of either InnoLet or vial/syringe for 6 weeks, then switched to the alternate regimen for 6 weeks. At the end of the study, utilization of healthcare resources was assessed in terms of the caregiver time required to assist in preparation, storage, and disposal of each device. For vial/syringe, 60% of patients required assistance in drawing up the appropriate dosage in the syringe, and 36% of patients required assistance when injecting insulin. A major portion of the patients (53%) could independently conduct injections (without nursing/caregiver assistance) during use of InnoLet, versus 20% for vial/syringe. As a result, mean daily nursing costs associated with the injection regimen were US$ 114 for the InnoLet device, and US$ 196 for vial/syringe (P<0.001). A majority of patients (82%) indicated a preference for the InnoLet device (P<0.001).