Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36138181›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the WHO-5 Well-being Index and the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaire (PAID) used in telehealth among patients with type 1 diabetes.

Liv Marit Valen Schougaard, Tinne Laurberg, Kirsten Lomborg, Troels Krarup Hansen, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Annesofie Lunde Jensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Liv Marit Valen SchougaardAmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Møllegade 16, 7400, Herning, Denmark. livschou@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2928-2569
Tinne LaurbergSteno Diabetes Centre Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Hedeager 3, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7555-2665
Kirsten LomborgSteno Diabetes Centre Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 83, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5809-3508
Troels Krarup HansenSteno Diabetes Centre Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Hedeager 3, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0708-2868
Niels Henrik HjollundAmbuFlex - Center for Patient-Reported Outcomes, Central Denmark Region, Gødstrup Hospital, Møllegade 16, 7400, Herning, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6697-6597
Annesofie Lunde JensenSteno Diabetes Centre Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Hedeager 3, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2025-6663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures may be used in telehealth for the clinical assessment of mental health and diabetes distress, which are important aspects in diabetes care, but valid and reliable instruments on these topics are necessary. We aimed to evaluate the test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish versions of the WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaires used in a PRO-based telehealth intervention among patients with type 1 diabetes. A further aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of single items concerning patients' symptom burden and general health status.

methodsOutpatients with type 1 diabetes from the Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, were enrolled from April 2019 to June 2020. Patients aged ≥ 18 who had type 1 diabetes for > 1 year, internet access, and the ability to understand, read, and write Danish were included. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted Kappa values were used to assess test-retest reliability, and measurement error was assessed by estimating the minimal detectable change (MDC).

resultsA total of 146/255 (57%) patients completed the web questionnaire twice. The median response time between the two-time points was five days. The ICC of the WHO-5 scale was 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.90), and MDC was 18.56 points (95% CI 16.65-20.99). The ICC of the PAID scale was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92), and MDC was 11.86 points (95% CI 10.46-13.70). Overall, test-retest reliability of single symptoms and general health status items was substantial.

conclusionsThe WHO-5 and PAID questionnaires, and single symptoms and general health status items showed substantial test-retest reliability among patients with type 1 diabetes. Measurement error of the PAID questionnaire was considered acceptable; however, a larger measurement error of the WHO-5 questionnaire was observed. Further research is recommended to explore these findings.

Indexed as

Diabetes mellitus Type 1Patient-reported outcome measuresProblem Areas in DiabetesPsychometricsReproducibility of resultsWHO-5 Well-being Index

Identifiers

PMID36138181
PMCPMC9500120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.