ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Development of the TBQ+D: A Novel Patient-Reported Measure of The Burden of Digital Care.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital therapeutics use burden in patients with chronic diseases: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Validation of a novel patient-reported measure of the burden of digital care in diabetes.BMC medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with diabetes manage complex treatment regimens that include the use of digital medicine tools. Existing instruments do not explicitly capture treatment burden, i.e., workload and its effect on patient's quality of life, from using digital medicine tools. Objective: To engage patients and clinical experts in adapting the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) to capture digital treatment burden. The adapted instrument underwent cognitive testing and refinements to ensure it captures the burden of using digital medicine tools in diabetes self-management. Methods: This two-phase study was conducted with adults with diabetes at the Division of Endocrinology at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). First, we mapped themes from prior concept elicitation interviews to existing TBQ items to identify content gaps related to digital burden. Based on these gaps, the study team and expert panel generated new items and adapted existing ones to better reflect the workload and burdens from using digital medicine tools. The resulting instrument underwent three rounds of cognitive testing with adult patients living with diabetes, using a think-aloud protocol to assess clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Results of cognitive testing informed iterative refinements across three rounds of interviews, leading to improved clarity, reduced redundancy, and improved relevance of items. Results: The final TBQ+D retained the original 15-item TBQ structure, added 8 new items, and modified 8 extant ones to capture burden of digital care (e.g, syncing issues, discomfort from sensors, and device malfunctions). Cognitive testing demonstrated strong content relevance and patient comprehension. Conclusion: The TBQ+D can measure digital treatment burden in patients with diabetes. Limitations include a relatively homogeneous sample drawn from a single center. Next steps include field testing for validation across diverse populations and settings.
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.