PDB55 Translation and Validation Study of 14-Item Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (MDKT): The Urdu Version

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Non-adherence to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes presents a serious challenge. Potential explanations for non adherence may include aversion to insulin self-injection and fear of hypoglycemic events. In clinical trails, insulin analogs have shown to reduce the risk of hypoglycemic events versus human insulins, and a recent review suggests that insulin delivered via a pen device may result in greater adherence versus vial and syringe. This study was conducted to compare the adherence rates of patients initiating basal insulin therapy with insulin detemir (IDet) FlexPen® versus those initiating basal insulin therapy with NPH via vial and syringe. METHODS: Data were gathered from a large US national payer retrospective claims database, and included only patients with type 2 diabetes that initiated basal insulin therapy with either IDet FlexPen® or NPH in vials. Patients with claims for any other type of insulin, other than the index insulin formulations during the 12-month observation period were excluded. Patients were defined as being adherent to therapy if they had a medication possession ration (MPR) of at least 0.80 in the 12-month follow up period. RESULTS: The IDet FlexPen® cohort (nϭ1082) and the NPH vial cohort (nϭ794) were of similar age (54.06 vs. 53.13, pϭ0.134); however, the IDet FlexPen® cohort had a lower proportion of female patients (44% vs. 55%, pϽ0.001) and fewer patients without a history of pre-index OADs (9% vs 45%, pϽ0.001), than the NPH vial cohort. After controlling for important confounders, patients initiating insulin therapy with IDet FlexPen® were 39% more likely to achieve an MPR of 0.80 or greater versus patients initiating insulin therapy with NPH vial (95% CI: 1.04-1.85). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that adherence may be improved for patients initiating basal insulin therapy with IDet in the FlexPen® versus NPH in a vial.

Profile and predictors of health related quality of life among type II diabetes mellitus patients in Quetta city, Pakistan

“…The MDKT was scored as zero for incorrect response and one for a correct response [24]. Therefore, the knowledge scores ranged from 0 to 14.…”

“…The Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (MDKT) was used for the assessment of diabetes-related knowledge. The MDKT was scored as zero for incorrect response and one for a correct response [ 24 ]. Therefore, the knowledge scores ranged from 0 to 14.…”

“…The MDKT and DAI-10 are already validated in Urdu language and have proved to be a reliable tool [ 7 , 24 ]. Permission to use the questionnaire was taken accordingly.…”

Assessment of medication adherence among type 2 diabetic patients in Quetta city, Pakistan

“…The validated Urdu version of Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (MDKT) was used for the assessment of diabetes-related knowledge. [31] The MDKT was scored as zero for incorrect response and one for a correct response consequently, knowledge scores ranged from 0-14. The range of knowledge score was categorized in three different ways (poor knowledge < 7, average knowledge 7-11 and good knowledge > 11) [32] .…”