Assessing patient-reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures

J Weissberg-Benchell, J B Shapiro, K Hood, L M Laffel, D Naranjo, K Miller, K Barnard, J Weissberg-Benchell, J B Shapiro, K Hood, L M Laffel, D Naranjo, K Miller, K Barnard

Abstract

Aim: Participants in clinical trials assessing automated insulin delivery systems report perceived benefits and burdens that reflect their experiences and may predict their likelihood of uptake and continued use of this novel technology. Despite the importance of understanding their perspectives, there are no available validated and reliable measures assessing the psychosocial aspects of automated insulin delivery systems. The present study assesses the initial psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures, which were developed for youth and adults with Type 1 diabetes, as well as parents and partners.

Methods: Data from 292 youth, 159 adults, 150 parents of youth and 149 partners of individuals recruited from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Registry were analysed. Participants completed INSPIRE questionnaires and measures of quality of life, fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, glucose monitoring satisfaction. Exploratory factor analysis assessed factor structures. Associations between INSPIRE scores and other measures, HbA1c , and technology use assessed concurrent and discriminant validity.

Results: Youth, adult, parent and partner measures assess positive expectancies of automated insulin delivery systems. Measures range from 17 to 22 items and are reliable (α = 0.95-0.97). Youth, adult and parent measures are unidimensional; the partner measure has a two-factor structure (perceptions of impact on partners versus the person with diabetes). Measures showed concurrent and discriminant validity.

Conclusions: INSPIRE measures assessing the positive expectancies of automated insulin delivery systems for youth, adults, parents and partners have meaningful factor structures and are internally consistent. The developmentally sensitive INSPIRE measures offer added value as clinical trials test newer systems, systems become commercially available and clinicians initiate using these systems.

© 2019 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.

References

    1. Haidar A, Legault L, Messier V, Mitre T, Leroux C, Tabaselhorel R. Comparison of dual‐hormone artificial pancreas single hormone artificial pancreas, and conventional insulin pump therapy for glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015; 3: 17–26.
    1. Thabit H, Lubiana‐Solomon A, Stadler M, Leelarathna L, Walkinshaw E, Pernet A et al Home use of closed‐loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4‐week multi‐center randomized crossover study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014; 2: 701–709.
    1. Bergenstal RM, Garg S, Weinzimer SA, Buckingham BA, Bode BW, Tamborlane WV et al Safety of a hybrid closed‐loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2016; 316: 1407–1408.
    1. Russell SJ, El‐Khatib FH, Sinha M, Magyar KL, McKeon K, Goergen LG et al Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 313–325.
    1. Kovatchev B, Cheng P, Anderson SM, Pinsker JE, Boscari F, Buckingham BA et al Feasibility of long‐term closed‐loop control: a multi‐center 6‐month trial of 24/7 automated insulin delivery. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 18–24.
    1. Barnard K, Wysocki T, Thabit H, Evans M, Amiel S, Heller S et al Psychosocial aspects of closed‐ and open‐loop insulin delivery: closing the loop in adults with Type 1 diabetes in the home setting. Diabet Med 2015; 32: 601–608.
    1. Barnard K, Wysocki T, Ully V, Mader J, Pieber T, Thabit H et al Closing the loop in adults, children and adolescents with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes under free living conditions: a psychosocial substudy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 1080–1088.
    1. Weissberg‐Benchell J, Hessler D, Fisher L, Russell S, Polonsky W. Impact of an automated bihormonal delivery system on psychosocial outcomes I adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 644–6.
    1. Weissberg‐Benchell J, Hessler D, Polonsky W, Fisher L. Psychosocial impact of the bionic pancreas during summer camp. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 840–844.
    1. Hendrieckx C, Poole L, Sharifi A, Jayawardene D, Loh M, Horsburgh J et al It is definitely a game changer: a qualitative study of experiences with in‐home overnight closed loop technology among adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 410–416.
    1. Naranjo D, Tanenbaum M, Iturralde E, Hood K. Diabetes technology: uptake, outcomes, barriers and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 852–858.
    1. Russell SJ, Beck R. Design considerations for artificial pancreas pivotal trials. Diabetes Care 2016; 39: 1161–1167.
    1. Naranjo D, Suttiratana S, Iturralde E, Barnard K, Weissberg‐Benchell J, Hood K et al What end users and stakeholders want from automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1453–1461.
    1. Walsh TR, Irwin DE, Meier A, Varni JW, DeWalt D. The use of focus groups in the development of the PROMIS Pediatric Item Bank. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 725–735.
    1. Rebok G, Riley A, Forrest CB, Starfield B, Green BF, Robertson J et al Elementary school‐aged children's reports of their health: a cognitive interviewing study. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 59–70.
    1. Woolley ME, Bowen GL, Bowen NK. The development and evaluation of procedures to assess child self‐report item validity. Educ Psychol Measure 2006; 66: 687–700.
    1. Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2005.
    1. Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass, 1996.
    1. Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care 2001; 39: 800–812.
    1. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO‐5 wellbeing index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom 2015; 84: 167–176.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. Development of a new measure for assessing glucose monitoring device‐related treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015; 17: 657–663.
    1. Cox DJ, Irvine A, Gonder‐Frederick L, Nowacek G, Butterfield J. Fear of hypoglycemia: quantification, validation, and utilization. Diabetes Care 1987; 10: 617–621.
    1. Gonder‐Frederick L, Nyer M, Shepard JA, Vajda K, Clarke W. Assessing fear of hypoglycemia in children with Type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Manag (Lond) 2011; 1: 627–639.
    1. Hood KK, Butler DA, Volkening LK, Anderson BJ, Laffel LM. The Blood Glucose Monitoring Communication questionnaire: an instrument to measure affect specific to blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 2610–2615.
    1. Evans M, Davis L, Weissberg‐Benchell J. Psychometric properties of the child and parent problem areas in diabetes measures. Poster presented at the 76th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2016.
    1. Shapiro JB, Evans M, Vesco A, Hood K, Antisdel J, Weissberg‐Benchell J. Validation of the Problem Areas in Diabetes measure‐ parents of teens: associations with psychosocial and metabolic outcomes. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, Valencia, Spain, 2016.
    1. Markowitz JT, Volkening LK, Butler DA, Antisdel‐Lomaglio J, Anderson BJ, Laffel LMB. Re‐examining a measure of diabetes‐related burden in parents of young people with Type 1 diabetes: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Survey – Parent Revised version (PAID‐PR). Diabet Med 2012; 29: 526–530.
    1. Fisher L, Polonsky WH, Hessler DM, Masharani U, Blumer I, Peters AL et al Understanding the sources of diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Complicat 2015; 29: 572–577.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Johnson N. Emotional distress in the partners of type 1 diabetes adults: worries about hypoglycemia and other key concerns. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18: 292–297.
    1. Vesco A, Garza K, Jedraszko A, Weissberg‐Benchell J. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) associated with less diabetes‐specific emotional distress and lower a1c among adolescents with Type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 792–799.
    1. Wong JC, Boyle C, DiMeglio LA, Mastrandrea LD, Abel KL, Cengiz E et al; T1D Exchange Clinic Network . Evaluation of pump discontinuation and associated factors in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 224–232.
    1. Wong JC, Dolan LM, Yang TT. Hood KK Insulin pump use and glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: predictors of change in method of insulin delivery across two years. Pediat Diabetes 2015; 16: 592–599.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe