Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires Validated in Brazilian Portuguese: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Two researchers conducted independent searches on five different electronic databases: PubMed/ MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, LiLACS and Web of Science. Studies were selected that covered crosscultural adaptation methodology and validation in Brazil with type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients of any age. After reading the full-text articles, data related to psychometric characteristics were extracted from each study selected. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α (Cα). The initial searches identified 2,211 studies. After exclusions, 26 were included, covering a total of 31 questionnaires. Questionnaires were grouped into 11 domains based on their main focus of interest: adherence (n = 8), quality of life (n = 7), diabetes knowledge (n = 3), hypoglycemia (n = 3), self-efficacy (n = 3), satisfaction with pharmaceutical services (n = 1), emotional stress (n = 2), hope (n = 1), attitude towards diabetes (n = 1), perception of disease severity (n=1), and risk of developing diabetes (n = 1). This study identified and reviewed all of the diabetes-specific questionnaires that have been validated for Brazilian Portuguese, which should facilitate selection of the most appropriate instrument for each domain of interest in future research and clinical settings. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2020;64(2):111-20

Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes

“…Moreover, most reviews provided a judgment on the quality of only some of the measurement properties. For example, Bottino et al 16 only evaluated internal consistency, and content validity and structural validity were almost never evaluated in any of these reviews. Thus, the current review is the first to give a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of PROMs or subscales that measure physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes.…”

“…At least eight systematic reviews on PROMs used in diabetes research and care that could potentially have included the same instruments and articles have been published in the last decade 13 15–19 21 22. However, these reviews included at best only half of the PROMs that were included in this study.…”

“…Several systematic reviews on PROMs used in diabetes research have been published in the last decade 13–22. Most of these reviews included instruments measuring multidimensional constructs,13 15–19 21 22 but have not reported13 19 nor evaluated15–18 21 22 the results per subscale. They also made little to no effort to provide an overview of the different constructs measured by subscales of PROMs.…”

“…This is important, because the results of measurement properties can vary among subscales and review users need to know what the best instrument is to measure a certain construct. Moreover, several reviews have not conducted a (complete) risk of bias assessment to assess the quality of individual studies13 17–19 nor have they graded the quality of the total body of evidence for a specific PROM 13 16–19…”

Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Developed for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review

“…High-quality systematic reviews are needed that evaluate and compare the measurement properties of PROMs to select the best PROMs for research or care. At least 16 systematic reviews of PROMs have been published in the field of diabetes [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. However, only seven reviews evaluated content validity of the included PROMs to some extent [10,12,13,[18][19][20]22].…”