Patient Perceptions of Non-Insulin Injection Devices for Type 2 Diabetes

Matza, LS; Stewart, K.D.; Paczkowski, Rosirene; Murray, Lauren; Landrian, A.; Boye, Kristina S.

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1269

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, this psychometric evaluation study adds to previous qualitative research [ 19 , 20 ] supporting the use of the DID-EQ for assessing patient perceptions of non-insulin injection devices and the injection process. In addition, the DID-PQ may also be useful in situations when patients can compare two non-insulin injection devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Items were considered for deletion if they met any of the following criteria: (1) ceiling or floor effect (i.e., items where more than 80% of the sample endorsed the highest or lowest response options); (2) greater than 5% missing responses; (3) redundancy as indicated by a particularly high correlation with another item ( r > 0.85); (4) lack of relationship to other items as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha with the item deleted (i.e., if alpha increased by > 10% upon deletion of an item, then that item would have been considered for possible exclusion because it could potentially reduce internal consistency of the scale); and (5) items with insufficient factor loading (i.e., < 0.40) or loading on multiple factors in the factor analysis described below. Additionally, when deciding whether to delete any item, the clinical importance of each item was also considered, based on qualitative research conducted to support development of the questionnaires prior to this psychometric study [ 19 , 20 ]. Items were not necessarily deleted based on any individual statistical criterion or cut-off.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, a pair of draft PRO measures was recently developed to assess perceptions of non-insulin injection devices. Content validity of the two draft measures was supported by qualitative research with a total of 52 patients treated with non-insulin injectable devices for type 2 diabetes (32 concept elicitation interviews to generate the items, followed by 20 cognitive interviews focused on refining the initial draft instruments) [ 19 , 20 ]. Each draft questionnaire included 20 items derived directly from perceptions of patients in the qualitative interviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychometric evaluation of the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ)

Matza

Stewart

Paczkowski

et al. 2018

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious research has examined patient perceptions of insulin injection devices. However, a range of injectable medications other than insulin are now used to treat type 2 diabetes. No patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed taking into account the perceptions of patients using newer injection devices, which are often different from those used in the past. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to evaluate a new PRO instrument focusing on patients’ experiences with injection devices, including those used for newer treatments such as GLP-1 receptor agonists.MethodsPatients with T2D treated with non-insulin injectable medications were recruited via advertisements and six clinical sites in the US. All participants completed the draft Diabetes Injection Device - Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and additional measures administered for validity assessment. Participants who had experience with two non-insulin injection devices also completed the draft Diabetes Injection Device - Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ). Analyses focused on item reduction (item performance, exploratory factor analysis), reliability, and validity.ResultsOne hundred fourty two patients (mean age = 63.0y; 56.3% female) participated. Item reduction yielded a 10-item version of the DID-EQ, including a 7-item Device Characteristics subscale and three global items assessing satisfaction, ease of use, and convenience of the injection device. The DID-EQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of Device Characteristics subscale = 0.80) and 7-day test-retest reliability (ICCs: 0.92 for Device Characteristics subscale; 0.65 to 0.91 for the three global items). Construct validity was demonstrated via correlations with previously validated instruments (e.g., correlations with the DTSQ treatment satisfaction subscale ranged from 0.56 to 0.60, all p < 0.0001; correlations with the TRIM-D Device ranged from 0.63 to 0.77, all p < 0.0001). Descriptive analyses of the DID-PQ were conducted with a subset of 27 participants who were able to use it to compare two devices.ConclusionsThis psychometric evaluation supports the reliability and validity of the DID-EQ, while providing initial information on the performance of the DID-PQ. These brief questionnaires complement measures of treatment efficacy and provide a more thorough picture of patients’ experiences with non-insulin injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0064-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation