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
. 2018 Sep 19:2:44.
doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0064-3. eCollection 2018 Dec.

Psychometric evaluation of the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ)

Louis S Matza  1 , Katie D Stewart  1 , Rosirene Paczkowski  2 , Karin S Coyne  1 , Brooke Currie  1 , Kristina S Boye  2
Affiliations

Psychometric evaluation of the Diabetes Injection Device Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ)

Louis S Matza et al. J Patient Rep Outcomes. .

Abstract

Background: Previous research has examined patient perceptions of insulin injection devices. However, a range of injectable medications other than insulin are now used to treat type 2 diabetes. No patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed taking into account the perceptions of patients using newer injection devices, which are often different from those used in the past. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to evaluate a new PRO instrument focusing on patients' experiences with injection devices, including those used for newer treatments such as GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Methods: Patients with T2D treated with non-insulin injectable medications were recruited via advertisements and six clinical sites in the US. All participants completed the draft Diabetes Injection Device - Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and additional measures administered for validity assessment. Participants who had experience with two non-insulin injection devices also completed the draft Diabetes Injection Device - Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ). Analyses focused on item reduction (item performance, exploratory factor analysis), reliability, and validity.

Results: One hundred fourty two patients (mean age = 63.0y; 56.3% female) participated. Item reduction yielded a 10-item version of the DID-EQ, including a 7-item Device Characteristics subscale and three global items assessing satisfaction, ease of use, and convenience of the injection device. The DID-EQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha of Device Characteristics subscale = 0.80) and 7-day test-retest reliability (ICCs: 0.92 for Device Characteristics subscale; 0.65 to 0.91 for the three global items). Construct validity was demonstrated via correlations with previously validated instruments (e.g., correlations with the DTSQ treatment satisfaction subscale ranged from 0.56 to 0.60, all p < 0.0001; correlations with the TRIM-D Device ranged from 0.63 to 0.77, all p < 0.0001). Descriptive analyses of the DID-PQ were conducted with a subset of 27 participants who were able to use it to compare two devices.

Conclusions: This psychometric evaluation supports the reliability and validity of the DID-EQ, while providing initial information on the performance of the DID-PQ. These brief questionnaires complement measures of treatment efficacy and provide a more thorough picture of patients' experiences with non-insulin injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Keywords: GLP-1 receptor agonist; Injection device; PRO; Patient-reported outcomes measures; Psychometric validation; Type 2 diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NAThis study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN). Kristina S. Boye and Rosirene Paczkowski are employees of Eli Lilly, who provided funding for this study. Louis Matza, Katie Stewart, Brooke Currie, and Karin Coyne are employed by Evidera, a company that received funding from Lilly for time spent on this research. All aspects of the study design, interpretation, and manuscript were determined by the authors.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. ANDERSON R. Development and validation of the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Clinical Therapeutics. 2004;26(4):565–578. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(04)90059-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peyrot M, Rubin RR. Validity and reliability of an instrument for assessing health-related quality of life and treatment preferences: The insulin delivery system rating questionnaire. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(1):53–58. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.1.53. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Reaney M, Elash CA, Litcher-Kelly L. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) used in recent phase 3 trials for type 2 diabetes: A review of concepts assessed by these PROs and factors to consider when choosing a PRO for future trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;116:54–67. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, Summers KH, Lenox SM. Development of an instrument to assess expectations of and preference for an insulin injection pen compared with the vial and syringe. Clin Ther. 2004;26(4):590–597. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(04)90061-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Supplement 1):S73–S85. doi: 10.2337/dc18-S008. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources