Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30612113›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for diabetes: development of scale models, differences between patient groups and relationships with cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors, in a combined registry and survey study in Sweden.

Sixten Borg, Katarina Eeg-Olofsson, Bo Palaszewski, Maria Svedbo Engström, Ulf-G Gerdtham, Soffia Gudbjörnsdottir

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sixten BorgDepartment of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Health Economics Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6292-7002
Katarina Eeg-OlofssonSahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.
Bo PalaszewskiDepartment of Data Management and Analysis, Lillhagsparken 5, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4854-2701
Maria Svedbo EngströmSahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8267-592X
Ulf-G GerdthamDepartment of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Health Economics Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0647-7817
Soffia GudbjörnsdottirSahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.
Centre of Registers Vastra Gotaland · SEDalarna University · SELund University · SERegion Västra Götaland · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SEStockholm School of Economics · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) has developed a diabetes-specific questionnaire to collect information on individuals' management of their diabetes, collaboration with healthcare providers and the disease's impact on daily life. Our main objective was to develop measures of well-being, abilities to manage diabetes and judgements of diabetes care, and to detect and quantify differences using the NDR questionnaire. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsThe questionnaire was analysed with using responses from 3689 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes, randomly sampled from the NDR population, combined with register data on patient characteristics and cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors.

methodsWe used item response theory to develop scales for measuring well-being, abilities to manage diabetes and judgements of diabetes care (scores). Test-retest reliability on the scale level was analysed with intraclass correlation. Associations between scores and risk factor levels were investigated with subgroup analyses and correlations.

resultsWe obtained scales with satisfactory measurement properties, covering patient reported outcome measures such as general well-being and being free of worries, and patient reported experience measure, for example, access and continuity in diabetes care. All scales had acceptable test-retest reliability and could detect differences between diabetes types, age, gender and treatment subgroups. In several aspects, for example, freedom of worries, type 1 patients report lower than type 2, and younger patients lower than older. Associations were found between some scores and glycated haemoglobin, but none with systolic blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Clinicians report positive experience of using scores, visually presented, in the patient dialogue.

conclusionsThe questionnaire measures and detects differences in patient well-being, abilities and judgements of diabetes care, and identifies areas for improvement. To further improve diabetes care, we conclude that patient-reported measures are important supplements to cardiovascular and diabetes complication risk factors, reflecting patient experiences of living with diabetes and diabetes care.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsRegistriesReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenGeneral DiabetesItem Response TheoryPatient Reported Experience Measures (prem)Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (prom)

Identifiers

PMID30612113
PMCPMC6326341
OpenAlexW2908252299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.