BackgroundOne of the most widely used self-reporting tools assessing diabetes self-management in English is the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) measure. To date there is no psychometric validated instrument in German to assess self-management in patients with diabetes mellitus. Therefore, this study aimed to translate the SDSCA into German and examine its psychometric properties.MethodsThe English version of the SDSCA was translated into German following the guidelines for cultural adaptation. The German version of the SDSCA (SDSCA-G) was administered to a random sample of 315 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. Reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and item characteristics were assessed. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) were carried out to explore the construct validity. A multivariable linear regression model was used to identify the influence of predictor variables on the SDSCA-G sum score.ResultsThe Cronbach’s alpha for the SDSCA-G (all items) was α = 0.618 and an acceptable correlation between the SDSCA-G and Self-management Diabetes Mellitus-Questionnaire (SDQ) (ρ = 0.664) was identified. The EFA suggested a four factor construct as did the postulated model. The CFA showed the goodness of fit of the SDSCA-G. However, item 4 was found to be problematic regarding the analysis of psychometric properties. The omission of item 4 yielded an increase in Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.631) and improvements of the factor structure and model fit. No statistically significant influences of predictor variables on the SDSCA-G sum score were observed.ConclusionThe revised German version of the SDSCA (SDSCA-G) is a reliable and valid tool assessing self-management in adults with type 2 diabetes in Germany.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0185-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The contents of the educational seminars included in family medicine training programs will have to be specifically based on family medicine and cover all relevant aspects of the KCA - medical expertise, competencies and procedures. In order to ensure a common standard concerning didactic methods and qualifications of teachers, a didactic guideline is to be developed. The increasing demand of family medicine training programmes requires (further) development of the software eSchoolab, including integration of the KCA.

Background: Providing end of life care (EoLC) is an important aspect of primary care, which reduces the risk of hospital admission for most patients. However, general practitioners (GPs) seem to have low confidence in their ability to provide EoLC. Little is known about an adequate volume and kind of training in EoLC among GP trainees. Methods: We performed a before-after comparison in all postgraduate GP trainees who were registered in the vocational training program (KWBW VerbundweiterbildungPLUS). They were offered participation within a two-day seminar focussing on palliative care in 2017. Those who attended the seminar (intervention group I) completed a paper-based questionnaire directly before the intervention (T 1) and 6 months after (T 2). None-attendees (group C) were also asked to fill out the questionnaire once. The questionnaire covered previous experiences in palliative care, self-assessment of competencies in EoLC in the organisation of patient care as well as in control of symptoms, attitudes towards death and caring for dying patients and questions about GPs' role in EoLC. Results: In total, 294 GP trainees (I: n = 219; C: n = 75) participated in the study. Of those, more than 90% had previously gained experience in EoLC mainly during vocational training in the hospital rotation. Around a third had previously gained competencies in EoLC in medical school. Between groups I (T 1) and C no significant differences were observed in socio-demographic characteristics, pre-existing experience or overall expertise. At T 2, 75% of participants of group I declared they have extended their competencies in EoLC after the intervention and 70% classified the intervention as helpful or very helpful. Overall, they rated their competencies significantly higher than at T 1 (p < 0.01). In detail, competencies in organisation of EoLC and competencies in handling of symptoms significantly improved (p < 0.01). Due to the intervention, 66% could reflect their attitudes towards dying, death and grief and 18% changed their attitudes. Group I highlighted palliative care as one of GPs tasks (Likert 4.47/5, SD 0.75). Conclusions: The intervention fostered personal competencies, understanding and self-confidence in EoLC among GP trainees. This is crucial for the aim to broadly provide EoLC.