Assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life: what have the past 25 years taught us?

Over the past 25 years, there has been significant acknowledgement of the importance of assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life. Yet, despite the development of several diabetes-specific quality of life measures, the challenges we faced in 1995 remain. There is little consensus on the definition of quality of life because of the complexity and subjectivity of the concept. General quality of life comprises several domains of life, and these are highly individualized. Assessing the impact of diabetes on these life domains adds to the complexity. While comprehensive diabetes-specific quality-of-life measures typically increase respondent burden, brief questionnaires may not capture all relevant/important domains. Today, the lack of resolution of these challenges may explain why the impact of diabetes on quality of life is not systematically assessed in research or clinical care. Few researchers report detailed rationales for assessment, there is often a mismatch between the concept of interest and the measure selected, and data are misinterpreted as assessing the impact of diabetes on quality of life when, in reality, related but distinct constructs have been assessed, such as diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction or health status. While significant efforts are being made to increase routine monitoring of psychological well-being and understand the lived experience, no guidelines currently recommend routine clinical assessment of diabetes-specific quality of life, and there is no consensus on which questionnaire(s) to use. The gaps identified in this review need urgent attention, starting with recognition that assessment of diabetes-specific quality of life is as important as biomedical markers, if we are to improve the lives of people with diabetes.

Deficiencies in postgraduate training for healthcare professionals who provide diabetes education and support: results from the Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study

AIMS

To consider the global provision of self-management diabetes education and training for healthcare professionals using data from the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study.

METHODS

A total of 4785 healthcare professionals caring for people with diabetes were surveyed in 17 countries to assess diabetes healthcare provision, self-management support and training.

RESULTS

Of the healthcare professionals surveyed, 33.5% received formal postgraduate training in self-management (19.3-51.4% across countries) and 62.9% received training for medical management of diabetes (47.6-70.6% variation). Training in psychological management was low (19.1%), ranging from 3.6 to 36.5%, while 20.4% (a range of 3.6-36.4% across countries) had received no postgraduate training. Overall, the greatest training need was in the management of psychological aspects of diabetes (59.5%). For some, training in a domain was positively associated with a perceived need for further training. Communication skills, for example, listening (76.9%) and encouraging questions (76.1%), were the skills most widely used. Discussion of emotional issues was limited; 31-60% of healthcare professionals across the different countries reported that this only occurred if initiated by patients. Approximately two-thirds of participants reported a need for major improvements in emotional/psychological support, but few had received training in this area, with consistent findings across professional affiliations.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that healthcare professionals report being insufficiently equipped to provide diabetes self-management education, including emotional and psychological aspects of diabetes, and many are not receiving postgraduate training in any part (including medical care) of the management of diabetes. It is paramount that those responsible for the continuing professional development of healthcare professionals address this skills gap.

Short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID)-5 and PAID-1

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We wanted to identify a five-item short form of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and a single-item measure for rapid screening of diabetes-related emotional distress.

METHODS

Using an existing database of 1,153 patients with diabetes, we conducted a principal-components analysis to identify a set of five items and then conducted a reliability analysis and validity checks. From those five items, we identified the item with the strongest psychometric properties as a one-item screening tool.

RESULTS

We identified a reliable and valid short version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) comprising five of the emotional-distress questions of the full PAID items (PAID-5, with items 3, 6, 12, 16, 19). The PAID-5 has satisfactory sensitivity (94%) and specificity (89%) for recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. We also identified a one-item screening tool, the PAID-1 (Question 12: Worrying about the future and the possibility of serious complications), which has concurrent sensitivity and specificity of about 80% for the recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The PAID-5 and PAID-1 appear to be psychometrically robust short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress.