The validity and reliability of the type 2 diabetes and health promotion scale Turkish version: a methodological study

Yıldız, Esra; Kavuran, Esin

doi:10.1111/scs.12483

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…cj (Persian version)[145]; T2DHPS (Turkish version)[146]; DHPSC ck (Chinese version)[147]; PDQ-11cl [148];C-PDQ cm[149] •PROMs that assess health-promoting lifestyle behaviours of patients with diabetes.•Examples of domains assessed include physical activity, risk reduction, stress management, health responsibility, enjoyment of life, and healthy diet.Health-promoting lifestyle behaviorsHealth Belief Measures[150]; Given Health Belief Instrument (Spanish version)[151]; Health Belief Model Scale (Turkish version)[152]; Diabetes Health Belief Measure[153] • PROMs that assess diabetes-specific health beliefs of patients.•Examples of domains assessed include perceived benefits of and barriers to treatment and perceived severity of and vulnerability to complications.Health beliefsDiabetes Questionnaire[154]; Diabetes Questionnaire (Spanish version)[154]; Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (Spanish version)[31]; DKQ-24 cn[153]; DMKT co[155]; PCSD-P cp[156]; Miller et al[157]; Miller and Edwards[158]; PDDC cq[159]; DRNK cr[160]; FCCHL cs (Norwegian version)[161];KHLS-DM ct[162]; HLS-K cu[163]; HLS/SNS cv[164]; Ashok et al 1[165]; Ashok et al 2[166]; HLS-EU-Q47 cw[167] • PROMs that assess the level of diabetes knowledge, whether in general or for specific areas of knowledge such as nutrition knowledge.•Examples of domains assessed include symptoms (eg, frequent hunger), causes and risk factors (eg, lack of physical activity), complications (eg, kidney failure), and management (eg, reduced consumption of rice). cx[79]; DTSQ (Greek version)[171]; DiabMedSat cy[172]; DTBQ cz[169]; ITEQ da[168]; IITQ db[170]; ITAS dc[173]; C-ITAS-HK...…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review

Wee¹,

Kwan²,

Loh³

et al. 2021

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The management of diabetes is complex. There is growing recognition of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as a standardized method of obtaining an outlook on patients’ functional status and well-being. However, no systematic reviews have summarized the studies that investigate the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs. Objective Our aims were to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs by evaluating the methodological quality and overall level of evidence of these PROMs and to categorize them based on the outcome measures assessed. Methods This study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases. The PROMs were evaluated with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines. Results A total of 363 articles evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs for diabetes in the adult population were identified, of which 238 unique PROMs from 248 studies reported in 209 articles were validated in the type 2 diabetes population. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 of 9 measurement properties include the Chinese version of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (C-PDQ), Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20), and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients (C-ITAS-HK), of which the C-PDQ has a “sufficient (+)” rating for >4 measurement properties. A total of 43 PROMs meet the COSMIN guidelines for recommendation for use. Conclusions This study identified and synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of 238 unique PROMs for patients with type 2 diabetes and categorized the PROMs according to their outcome measures. These findings may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate high-quality PROMs for clinical practice and research. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review

Wee¹,

Kwan²,

Loh³

et al. 2021

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yıldız et al conducted content validity and reliability research in Turkey. R = 0.818 was the Cronbach alpha coefficient [18].…”

Section: Vaccination Attitudes Examination Scale (Vax)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coronavirus Anxiety Level and COVID-19 Vaccine Attitude Among Patients With Hematological Malignancies

Güven¹,

Çelik²,

Keklik³

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The COVID-19 vaccine is the most essential tool for altering the pandemic's trajectory. The pandemic's control is complicated by society's unwillingness to vaccinate. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess patients with hematological malignancies and their attitudes regarding COVID-19 immunization and to investigate COVID-19 anxiety in this susceptible population. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 165 patients with hematological malignancies were included. COVID-19 anxiety was evaluated with the coronavirus anxiety scale (CAS), and COVID-19 vaccine attitude was evaluated with the Vaccine Attitudes Review (VAX) scale. Results: The mean CAS score was 2.42 (0-17). There were 22 (13%) participants with a mean CAS score of ≥ 9. Half of the participants had a CAS score of 0. The CAS score was higher in females (p = 0.023). Similarly, it was significantly higher in patients who were not in remission for hematological malignancy and who received active chemotherapy (p = 0.010). The mean VAX score was 49.07 ± 8.76 (27-72). Most of the participants (64%) had a neutral attitude toward the COVID-19 vaccination. In a survey of 165 patients, 55% said that they were skeptical about vaccination safety, and 58% said that they were concerned about unintended side effects. In addition, 90% expressed moderate concerns about commercial profiteering. Natural immunity was preferred by 30% of the participants. There was no statistically significant correlation between CAS scores and the Vaccine Attitudes Review (VAX) scale. Conclusion: This study draws attention to the level of anxiety in patients with hematological malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Negative attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine are worrisome for at-risk patient groups. We think that patients with hematological malignancies should be informed to eliminate their hesitations about COVID-19 vaccines.

show abstract

“…The VAX scale is one of the most commonly used scales for understanding attitudes towards vaccines. Recently validated to different languages [45,[61][62][63][64], this instrument consists of a 12-item questionnaire formed by four specific subscales that evaluate: (a) mistrust of vaccine benefit, (b) worries about unforeseen future effects, (c) concerns about commercial profiteering, and (d) preference for natural immunity. Unlike other scales, the VAX scale does not focus exclusively on specific vaccines and higher total VAX scores suggest stronger anti-vaccination attitudes.…”

Section: Predictor Variables Vaccination Attitudes Examination (Vax)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Link between Vaccine Predispositions and Vaccine Advocacy through Certainty

Paredes

Cárdaba²,

Moreno

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Instruments designed to assess individual differences in predispositions towards vaccination are useful in predicting vaccination-related outcomes. Despite their importance, there is relatively little evidence regarding the conditions under which these instruments are more predictive. The current research was designed to improve the ability of these kinds of instruments to predict vaccination advocacy by considering the certainty associated with the responses to vaccination scales. Method. Across two studies, participants completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire BMQ scale (Study 1) or the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale (Study 2). The certainty participants had in their responses to each scale was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). Intentions to advocate in favor of vaccination served as the criterion measure in both studies. Results. As expected, the scales significantly predicted vaccination advocacy, contributing to enhancing the predictive validity of the instruments used in the studies. Most relevant, certainty moderated the extent to which these scales predicted vaccination advocacy, with greater consistency between the initial scores and the subsequent advocacy willingness obtained for those with higher certainty. Conclusions. Certainty can be useful to predict when the relationship between vaccination-related cognitions (i.e., beliefs or attitudes) and advocacy willingness is likely to be stronger.

show abstract

The validity and reliability of the type 2 diabetes and health promotion scale Turkish version: a methodological study

Abstract: Turkish version of The T2DHPS is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess patients' health-promoting lifestyle behaviours. Validity and reliability studies in different cultures and regions are recommended.

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review

Coronavirus Anxiety Level and COVID-19 Vaccine Attitude Among Patients With Hematological Malignancies

Strengthening the Link between Vaccine Predispositions and Vaccine Advocacy through Certainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About