Evidence mapPaperPMID 27013867Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016

The Diabetes Intention, Attitude, and Behavior Questionnaire: evaluation of a brief questionnaire to measure physical activity, dietary control, maintenance of a healthy weight, and psychological antecedents.

Shana B Traina, Susan D Mathias, Hilary H Colwell, Ross D Crosby, Charles Abraham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. On Psychology and Psychiatry in Diabetes.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shana B TrainaPatient-Reported Outcomes, Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Susan D MathiasHealth Outcomes Solutions, Winter Park, FL, USA.
Hilary H ColwellHealth Outcomes Solutions, Winter Park, FL, USA.
Ross D CrosbyHealth Outcomes Solutions, Winter Park, FL, USA; Biomedical Statistics & Methodology, Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, Fargo, ND, USA; Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Grand Forks, ND, USA.
Charles AbrahamPsychology Applied to Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study assessed measurement properties of the 17-item Diabetes Intention, Attitude, and Behavior Questionnaire (DIAB-Q), which measures intention to engage in self-care behaviors, including following a diabetes diet and engaging in appropriate physical activity.

methodsThe DIAB-Q includes questions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Items were developed using published literature, input from health care professionals, and qualitative research findings in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In Stage I of the study, 23 adults with T2DM were interviewed to evaluate the content and clarity of the DIAB-Q. In Stage II 1,015 individuals with T2DM completed the DIAB-Q and supplemental questionnaires, including the Short Form-36 acute (SF-36), section III of the Multidimensional Diabetes Questionnaire, the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities questionnaire, and self-administered items relevant to the treatment and management of T2DM (eg, blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]) at baseline and 3-7 days later. Once the DIAB-Q scale structure was determined, its test-retest reliability, construct validity, and known-groups validity were evaluated, and minimal clinically important change was estimated.

resultsIn Stage I, the 23 respondents surveyed generally reported that the DIAB-Q was clear and comprehensive and endorsed questions as relevant to their intentions to engage in diabetes-related self-care activities. Most subjects in Stage II were male, Caucasian, and married. Mean age was 63 years. Factor analysis revealed six psychological constructs (Behavior, Planning, Intention, Perceived Behavioral Control, Attitude, and Subjective Norm). Test-retest reliability was acceptable (≥0.70) for all scales, except Perceived Behavioral Control. Construct validity was demonstrated based on correlations with diabetes-specific items/scales and the SF-36. Known-groups validity was confirmed for Behavior, Planning, and Intention when respondents were categorized into groups that differed based on body mass index, disease severity, and HbA1c. Item scores were transformed to a 100-point scale, and minimal clinically important change estimates ranged from 6-11 points, representing the change that would be considered important to a respondent.

conclusionThe DIAB-Q is a brief, psychometrically sound, patient-reported outcome that can be used among individuals with T2DM to evaluate intention to engage in self-care behaviors.

Indexed as

attitudebehaviordiabetesDIAB-Qintentionpatient-reported outcomequestionnaireTheory of Planned Behavior

Identifiers

PMID27013867
PMCPMC4778782

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.