Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277408›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

How to identify clinically significant diabetes distress using the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale in adults with diabetes treated in primary or secondary care? Evidence for new cut points based on latent class analyses.

M de Wit, Frans Pouwer, F J Snoek

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Mapping the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) and Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) to the EQ-5D-5L in diabetes care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

M de WitMedical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands m.dewit@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6029-5101
Frans PouwerDepartment of Psychology, University College South Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
F J SnoekMedical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
GGD Amsterdam · NLSteno Diabetes Centers · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Problem Areas of Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire is a frequently used measure to assess diabetes-distress. The aim of this study was to identify clinically meaningful levels of diabetes-distress, using latent class analyses (LCA), and to determine which groups were at increased risk of elevated diabetes-distress in terms of sex, age, type of diabetes and glycaemic control.

methodsData were derived from four studies (total N=2966, 49% female, age range 18-95 years, 43% type 1 diabetes, diabetes duration range 0-79 years). LCAs were performed to examine possible latent groups in the distribution of answers on the individual PAID items. Demographic and diabetes-related characteristics were added to the model to estimate their effects on latent class membership and receiver operating curves curves to determine cut-offs.

resultsThree levels of diabetes distress were distinguished with defined cut-off scores and labelled as: low, moderate and high diabetes distress. Levels of distress did not associate with distinct clusters of items. Older people were more likely to be part of the low distress class; women and people with high HbA

conclusionThree levels of diabetes-distress can be distinguished: low, moderate and high diabetes distress. Younger people, women and people with poor glycaemic control are at an increased risk for high levels of distress. A cut-off of 40 is satisfactory to detect people with high levels of diabetes-distress; a score of 0-16 indicates low diabetes distress and a score of 17-39 moderate diabetes distress.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1HyperglycemiaAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansLatent Class AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedSecondary Health CareStress, PsychologicalYoung AdultGlycated Hemoglobingeneral diabetesmental healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID35277408
PMCPMC8919470
OpenAlexW4220916687

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.