Diabetes distress in Type 1 diabetes--a new measurement fit for purpose.

AIMS: To examine and assess (1) the internal consistency and validity of a Danish translation of the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17) among adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, (2) the properties of the brief version of DDS17 and (3) cut points for the DDS17. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2419 adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Validated scales and questions measured diabetes distress (DDS17), diabetes empowerment (DES-SF), healthy diet, physical activity, self-rated health (SF-12) and quality of life (WHOQoL-BREF). An electronic patient record provided information about glycaemic control (HbA(1c)). We examined internal consistency, construct validity, subscale construction and cut points for determining clinically relevant diabetes distress, as well as two- and four-item brief versions of the DDS17. RESULTS: The DDS17 had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92; subscale alphas were 0.83-0.89. A four-factor division into subscales was appropriate and the division corresponded closely to the four domains described in the development of the DDS17. The DDS17 correlated well with relevant measures; higher distress was correlated with low diabetes empowerment, low quality of life, unhealthy diet, not being physically active, poor glycaemic control and low scores on the mental component score of the SF-12. A two-item brief scale performed as well as a four-item version. The relationship between DDS17 and outcomes did not suggest distinct cut points for DDS17. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide support for the use of this Danish adaptation of the DDS17 for assessing psychosocial distress among adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Patient factors and glycaemic control--associations and explanatory power.

AIMS: To investigate the association between glycaemic control and patient socio-demographics, activation level, diabetes-related distress, assessment of care, knowledge of target HbA(1c), and self-management behaviours, and to determine to what extent these factors explain the variance in HbA(1c) in a large Danish population of patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey and record review of 2045 patients from a specialist diabetes clinic. Validated scales measured patient activation, self-management behaviours, diabetes-related emotional distress, and perceived care. The electronic patient record provided information about HbA(1c), medication, body mass index, and duration of diabetes. Data were analysed using multiple linear regression models with stepwise addition of covariates. RESULTS: The response rate was 54% (n = 1081). Good glycaemic control was significantly associated with older age, higher education, higher patient activation, lower diabetes-related emotional distress, better diet and exercise behaviours, lower body mass index, shorter duration of disease and knowledge of HbA(1c) targets (P < 0.05 for all). Patient socio-demographics, behaviour; perceptions of care and diabetes distress accounted for 14% of the total variance in HbA(1c) levels (P = 0.0134), but the variance explained was higher for respondents treated with medications other than insulin. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the complex relationships between patient activation, distress and behaviour, specific treatment modalities and glycaemic control. Knowledge of treatment goals, achieving patient activation in coping with diabetes, and lowering disease-related emotional stress are important patient education goals. However, the large unexplained component of HbA(1c) variance highlights the need for more research to understand the mechanisms of glycaemic control.