No abstract

Aims/hypothesis We wanted to identify a five-item short form of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and a single-item measure for rapid screening of diabetes-related emotional distress. Methods Using an existing database of 1,153 patients with diabetes, we conducted a principal-components analysis to identify a set of five items and then conducted a reliability analysis and validity checks. From those five items, we identified the item with the strongest psychometric properties as a one-item screening tool. Results We identified a reliable and valid short version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) comprising five of the emotional-distress questions of the full PAID items (PAID-5, with items 3, 6, 12, 16, 19). The PAID-5 has satisfactory sensitivity (94%) and specificity (89%) for recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. We also identified a one-item screening tool, the PAID-1 (Question 12: Worrying about the future and the possibility of serious complications), which has concurrent sensitivity and specificity of about 80% for the recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. Conclusions/interpretation The PAID-5 and PAID-1 appear to be psychometrically robust short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

OBJECTIVE -The International Diabetes Mellitus Practice Study is a 5-year survey documenting changes in diabetes treatment practice in developing regions.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors for achieving A1C Ͻ7% in 11,799 patients (1,898 type 1 diabetic and 9,901 type 2 diabetic) recruited by 937 physicians from 17 countries in Eastern Europe (n ϭ 3,519), Asia (n ϭ 5,888), Latin America (n ϭ 2,116), and Africa (n ϭ 276).RESULTS -Twenty-two percent of type 1 diabetic and 36% of type 2 diabetic patients never had A1C measurements. In those with values for A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol, 7.5% of type 1 diabetic (n ϭ 696) and 3.6% of type 2 diabetic (n ϭ 3,896) patients attained all three recommended targets (blood pressure Ͻ130/80 mmHg, LDL cholesterol Ͻ100 mg/dl, and A1C Ͻ7%). Selfmonitoring of blood glucose was the only predictor for achieving the A1C goal in type 1 diabetes (odds ratios: Asia 2.24, Latin America 3.55, and Eastern Europe 2.42). In type 2 diabetes, short disease duration (Asia 0.97, Latin America 0.97, and Eastern Europe 0.82) and treatment with few oral glucose-lowering drugs (Asia 0.64, Latin America 0.76, and Eastern Europe 0.62) were predictors. Other region-specific factors included lack of microvascular complications and old age in Latin America and Asia; health insurance coverage and specialist care in Latin America; lack of obesity and self-adjustment of insulin dosages in Asia; and training by a diabetes educator, self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients who self-adjusted insulin, and lack of macrovascular complications in Eastern Europe.CONCLUSIONS -In developing countries, factors pertinent to patients, doctors, and health care systems all impact on glycemic control. Diabetes Care 32:227-233, 2009A lthough optimizing diabetes care reduces death and complication rates (1-3), multiple barriers hinder turning evidence into practice (4,5). Most diabetic patients reside in developing countries (6) where standardized data on quality of care is relatively scarce. The International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS) is an ongoing observational survey to collect, analyze, and disseminate data in a standardized manner. By documenting changes in practices over time in a broad range of health care settings, we aim to raise awareness and identify barriers to quality diabetes care. Other objectives include evaluation of clinical progress, levels of compliance, attainment of treatment targets, and rates of hospitalization and work absenteeism. This analysis of the first-year survey examines factors predictive of glycemic control.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -There are five waves in this 5-year study, each consisting of a 2-week cross-sectional and a 9-month longitudinal survey. A 3-month interval separates the end of the longitudinal survey and the start of the next wave. Study design and reporting format are in accordance with the recommended STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline...

Adherence to insulin therapy is generally poor. Few factors or patient-perceived barriers were consistently identified as predictive for non-adherence, although findings collectively suggest that a more flexible regimen may improve adherence. Switching to a pen device and reducing patient co-payments appear to improve adherence. Further real-world studies are warranted, especially in countries other than the USA, to identify factors associated with non-adherence and enable development of strategies to improve adherence to insulin therapy.