Subscribe to RSS
Perceived Benefits and Barriers Regarding CSII Treatment: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Insulin Pump Attitudes Questionnaire (IPA-Questionnaire)
Background Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion is the most advanced and demanding form of insulin therapy. Various positive and negative expectations, attitudes and experiences can occur, influencing adherence to and efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. A new questionnaire was developed to systematically assess perceived benefits, perceived barriers and handling of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy.
Methods The Insulin Pump Attitude Questionnaire was tested in two samples (n=265/452) comprising pump users and non-pump users. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha estimation. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to establish the factorial structure. Correlations with other questionnaires as well as group differences between pump users and non-pump users were used to assess validity.
Results Exploratory factor analysis revealed 26 items comprising six subscales: “Glycaemic Control”, “Flexibility”, “Impaired Body Image”, “Technology Dependency”, “Ease Of Use” and “Functionality”. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this factor structure. The IPA sum score correlated significantly with diabetes distress (r=−0.30), self-efficacy (r=0.22), diabetes empowerment (r=0.36), psychological well-being (r=0.16) and treatment dissatisfaction (r=−0.24), supporting criterion validity with small to medium effect sizes. Furthermore, the IPA was able to differentiate between pump users and non-pump users with higher scores for pump users regarding “Glycaemic Control”, “Flexibility”, “Ease of use” and “Functionality” and lower scores for pump users regarding “Impaired Body Image” and “Technology Dependency”.
Conclusions The Insulin Pump Attitude Questionnaire is a reliable and valid new instrument to assess attitudes towards continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. With six scales, the Insulin Pump Attitude Questionnaire provides a comprehensive analysis of possible benefits, barriers, and handling problems of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. In clinical practice, the Insulin Pump Attitude Questionnaire might be used to address the different attitudes in pump users but also in people considering continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy.
Key wordsinsulin therapy - diabetes mellitus - psychometry - psychometric validation - human factors - psychosocial aspects
Received: 14 February 2019
Received: 11 April 2019
Accepted: 24 April 2019
Article published online:
19 August 2019
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York
- 1 Pickup JC, Keen H, Parsons JA. et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: An approach to achieving normoglycaemia. Br Med J 1978; 1: 204-207
- 2 Pickup JC, Keen H, Stevenson RW. et al. Insulin via continuous subcutaneous infusion. Lancet 1978; 2: 988-989
- 3 Pickup JC. Insulin-pump therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1616-1624 doi:10.1056/NEJMct1113948
- 4 Sherr JL, Hermann JM, Campbell F. et al. Use of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and its impact on metabolic control: Comparison of results from three large, transatlantic paediatric registries. Diabetologia 2016; 59: 87-91 doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3790-6
- 5 Karges B, Schwandt A, Heidtmann B. et al. Association of insulin pump therapy vs insulin injection therapy with severe hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, and glycemic control among children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2017; 318: 1358-1366. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.13994
- 6 Barnard KD, Lloyd CE, Skinner TC. Systematic literature review: Quality of life associated with insulin pump use in Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2007; 24: 607-617 doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02120.x
- 7 Gonder-Frederick LA, Shepard JA, Grabman JH. et al. Psychology, technology, and diabetes management. Am Psychol 2016; 71: 577-589 doi:10.1037/a0040383
- 8 Gonder-Frederick L, Shepard J, Peterson N. Closed-loop glucose control: psychological and behavioral considerations. J Diabetes SciTechnol 2011; 5: 1387-1395
- 9 King WR. ‘A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model’. Information & Management 2006; 43: 740-755
- 10 Ehrmann D, Kulzer B, Schipfer M. et al. Efficacy of an education program for people with diabetes and insulin pump treatment (INPUT): Results from a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (12) 2453-2462
- 11 Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J. et al. Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: Development of the diabetes distress scale. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 626-631
- 12 Schmitt A, Reimer A, Kulzer B. et al. How to assess diabetes distress: Comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). Diabet Med 2016; 33: 835-843 doi:10.1111/dme.12887
- 13 Bergis N, Ehrmann D, Hermanns N. et al. Lässt sich Empowerment bei Menschen mit Diabetes messen? [Is empowerment measurable in persons with diabetes?]. Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2012; 7: P_9
- 14 Kempe J, Hermanns N, Kubiak T. et al. Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Selbstmanagementfertigkeiten. Diabetes und Stoffwechsel 2002; 11: 144
- 15 Kulzer B, Bauer U, Hermanns N. et al. Entwicklung eines Problemfragebogens fuer Diabetiker zur Identifikation von Schwierigkeiten im Umgang mit der Krankheit [Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of diabetes related problems and satisfaction with insulin treatment]. Verhaltenstherapie 1995; 5: A72
- 16 Psychiatric Research U, Health WHOCCfM. WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5)http://wwwwho-5org/1998
- 17 Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S. et al. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics 2015; 84: 167-176
- 18 Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 1998; 3: 424-453