Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 3;11(3):e0150774.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150774. eCollection 2016.

Assessing Diabetes Self-Management with the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) Can Help Analyse Behavioural Problems Related to Reduced Glycaemic Control

Affiliations

Assessing Diabetes Self-Management with the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) Can Help Analyse Behavioural Problems Related to Reduced Glycaemic Control

Andreas Schmitt et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Aim: To appraise the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ)'s measurement of diabetes self-management as a statistical predictor of glycaemic control relative to the widely used SDSCA.

Methods: 248 patients with type 1 diabetes and 182 patients with type 2 diabetes were cross-sectionally assessed using the two self-report measures of diabetes self-management DSMQ and SDSCA; the scales were used as competing predictors of HbA1c. We developed a structural equation model of self-management as measured by the DSMQ and analysed the amount of variation explained in HbA1c; an analogue model was developed for the SDSCA.

Results: The structural equation models of self-management and glycaemic control showed very good fit to the data. The DSMQ's measurement of self-management showed associations with HbA1c of -0.53 for type 1 and -0.46 for type 2 diabetes (both P < 0.001), explaining 21% and 28% of variation in glycaemic control, respectively. The SDSCA's measurement showed associations with HbA1c of -0.14 (P = 0.030) for type 1 and -0.31 (P = 0.003) for type 2 diabetes, explaining 2% and 10% of glycaemic variation. Predictive power for glycaemic control was significantly higher for the DSMQ (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: This study supports the DSMQ as the preferred tool when analysing self-reported behavioural problems related to reduced glycaemic control. The scale may be useful for clinical assessments of patients with suboptimal diabetes outcomes or research on factors affecting associations between self-management behaviours and glycaemic control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Stuctural equation model of diabetes self-management as measured by the DSMQ and glycaemic control for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Data are standardised regression weights (β) for paths or squared multiple correlations (R2) for variables. Boxes indicate manifest measurement variables; ovals indicate latent variables operationalised by manifest indicators; error terms are not displayed for ease of presentation. SRMR, Standardised Root Mean Square Residual; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Indication of two-sided significance: * P < 0.05; † P < 0.01; ‡ P < 0.001.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Stuctural equation model of diabetes self-management as measured by the SDSCA and glycaemic control for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Data are standardised regression weights (β) for paths or squared multiple correlations (R2) for variables. Boxes indicate manifest measurement variables; ovals indicate latent variables operationalised by manifest indicators; error terms are not displayed for ease of presentation. SRMR, Standardised Root Mean Square Residual; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Indication of two-sided significance: * P < 0.05; † P < 0.01; ‡ P < 0.001.

References

    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia. 2012. June;55(6):1577–96. 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahola AJ, Groop PH. Barriers to self-management of diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013. April;30(4):413–20. 10.1111/dme.12105 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith KJ, Rabasa-Lhoret R, Strychar I, Karelis AD, Clyde M, Levasseur J, et al. Good vs. poor self-rated diabetes control: differences in cardiovascular risk and self-care activities. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2014. April;122(4):236–9. 10.1055/s-0034-1367005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fullerton B, Jeitler K, Seitz M, Horvath K, Berghold A, Siebenhofer A. Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. February 14;2:CD009122 10.1002/14651858.CD009122.pub2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown A, Reynolds LR, Bruemmer D. Intensive glycemic control and cardiovascular disease: an update. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010. July;7(7):369–75. - PubMed

Publication types