ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Psychrometric Properties of the Arabic Version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale in Primary Care.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic brief forms of the diabetes distress scale in Egyptian patients with type II diabetes.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2026Article
- Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the problem areas in diabetes (PAID) scale among people with type 2 diabetes in Ethiopia: a tool validation study.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- What is well-being? A scoping review of the conceptual and operational definitions of occupational well-being.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic version of the 5-item Problem Areas in Diabetes (AR-PAID-5) scale.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors of Diabetes Distress, Depression and Anxiety Among Primary Care Patients With Type 2 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Egypt: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale is a reliable and valid tool that is widely used for diabetes-distress screening, but the Arabic version of the scale lacks validity and reliability analysis in primary healthcare (PHC) patients. Our study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the PAID (AR-PAID) scale among Egyptian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in PHC settings. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on a convenience sample of 200 patients from six rural PHC settings in the Ismailia governorate. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the goodness-of-fit to the predefined models of the PAID. Convergent construct was evaluated through correlations with the Arabic versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), and 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5), additionally glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Discriminant validity was evaluated through associations with patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Reliability was evaluated through internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and test-retest reliability analysis (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC). Results: The CFA demonstrated the best fit for a four-factor model. The AR-PAID was significantly correlated with the following measures: PHQ-9 (rho = 0.71, Conclusions: The AR-PAID scale is a valid and reliable instrument for diabetes-distress screening in primary care patients with T2DM that can be used in clinical settings and research. Further research is needed to validate short forms of the AR-PAID scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.