ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing the reliability and validity of the Slovenian version of the Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS-S) in type 2 diabetes patients.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) effectively is a considerable challenge. The Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS) has proven valuable in understanding how individuals perceive and cope with their condition. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of ADS (ADS-S). We recruited a sample of 400 adult individuals with T2D from three primary healthcare centers in Slovenia, ensuring an average of 57 cases per individual item. The psychometric evaluation included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was additionally performed to evaluate the fit of one- and two-factor models. After excluding incomplete questionnaires, 389 individuals participated, averaging 72.0±7.5 years, with 196 men and 193 women. ADS-S exhibited acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.70) and strong test-retest reliability (interclass correlation = 0.88, p <0.001). Criterion validity was established through significant correlations between ADS-S score and EQ-5D utility score (r = -0.34, p <0.001), EQ-VAS score (r = -0.38, p <0.001), and HbA1c >7.5% (r = 0.22, p = 0.019). Discriminant validity assessment found no significant correlation between ADS-S score and age, but a significant correlation with female gender (r = 0.17, p = 0.001). CFA results supported a two-factor structure (psychological impact of diabetes and sense of self-control) over a one-factor structure, as indicated by model fit indicators. ADS-S stands as a valid and reliable tool for assessing psychological impact and self-control in Slovenian T2D patients. Future research should explore adding items for capturing secondary appraisal of diabetes and studying the influence of female gender on ADS scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.