Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294714›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2018

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

Louis S Matza, Katie D Stewart, Rosirene Paczkowski, Karin S Coyne, Brooke Currie, Kristina S Boye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Exit Interviews Examining Patient Experiences with Tirzepatide and Dulaglutide for Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the SURPASS-CVOT Trial.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development and validation in Ecuador of the EPD Questionnaire, a diabetes-specific patient-reported experience and outcome measure: A mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louis S Matza1Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.
Katie D Stewart1Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.
Rosirene Paczkowski2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN USA.
Karin S Coyne1Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.
Brooke Currie1Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.
Kristina S Boye2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN USA.
Gramercy Research Group (United States) · USEli Lilly (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

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.

Indexed as

GLP-1 receptor agonistInjection devicePatient-reported outcomes measuresPROPsychometric validationType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID30294714
PMCPMC6153201
OpenAlexW2890558237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.