ArticleInternational journal of nursing sciences2022
The Chinese version of the revised Diabetes Distress Scale for adults with type 2 diabetes: Translation and validation study.
Article in International journal of nursing sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement Equivalence of Diabetes Self-Management, Distress, and Quality-of-Life Measures in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Vietnam.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-17): European Portuguese Validation.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Association between exposure to a PERMA model-based positive psychology intervention and levels of psychological distress and compliance behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Diabetes Distress in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes and Multimorbidity: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Fear of Complications Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Latent Profile Analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Trajectory prediction model of diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 12-month prospective longitudinal study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Network Analysis of Depressive Symptoms, Social Support, and Diabetes Distress Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Factors influencing health-related quality of life among people with uncontrolled type II diabetes mellitus in Wenzhou, China: A cross-sectional study.Belitung nursing journal · 2025Article
- Relationship between diabetes health literacy, distress, burnout, social support, complications, self-care behaviors, and quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes: a path analysis study.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024Article
- Characterizing Mental Health Status and Service Utilization in Chinese Americans With Type 2 Diabetes in New York City: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Correlators of Diabetes Distress in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to translate the revised 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17, 2017) into mandarin (simplified) Chinese and validate the Chinese version of DDS17 (C-DDS17, 2021) among adult patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Methods: A scale translation and cross-sectional validation study was conducted. The DDS17 was translated into mandarin (simplified) Chinese through a five-step process: authorization, forward translation, synthesis, back translation, and amendment. During this session, 59 patients assessed the understandability and readability of the translated scale. From June 7 to September 4, 2021, a cross-sectional study that adhered to the COSMIN checklist was conducted with 400 individuals with type 2 diabetes from three Class A tertiary comprehensive hospitals in Beijing, China. The content, construct, convergent, discriminant validity, and reliability (Cronbach's α coefficient and item-total correlation coefficients) of the C-DDS17 were evaluated. This study was a part of a project registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR2100047071). Results: Among the participants, 33.3% (133/400) of them experienced moderate to high diabetes distress. The content validity indices of the C-DDS17 equaled 1.00. The scale yielded a four-factor structure. The average variances extracted were 0.42-0.57, which was lower than squared correlations. Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.88 for the overall scale and ranged from 0.76 to 0.81 for sub-scales. Corrected item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.42 to 0.61. The eighth item ("Feeling that I am often failing with my diabetes routine") was better fit to physician distress than regimen distress but had little influence on the validation results. Conclusions: The C-DDS17 is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing diabetes distress in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is a promising instrument for early identification and management of diabetes distress in clinical practice and trials.
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.