| 42. |
- Terwee, Caroline B., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes : what and how to measure? A narrative review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Diabetologia. - : Springer. - 0012-186X .- 1432-0428. ; 66:8, s. 1357-1377
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.
|
|
| 43. |
- van Bakel, Marit M E, et al.
(författare)
-
Methodological challenges in the application of the Glycemic Index in epidemiological studies using data from the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Nutrition. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-3166 .- 1541-6100. ; 139:3, s. 568-575
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Associations between the glycemic index (GI) or glycemic load (GL) and diseases are heterogeneous in epidemiological studies. Differences in assigning GI values to food items may contribute to this inconsistency. Our objective was to address methodological issues related to the use of current GI and GL values in epidemiological studies. We performed ecological comparison and correlation studies by calculating dietary GI and GL from country-specific dietary questionnaires (DQ) from 422,837 participants from 9 countries participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study and single standardized 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDR) obtained from a representative sample (n = 33,404) using mainly Foster Powell's international table as a reference source. Further, 2 inter-rater and 1 inter-method comparison were conducted, comparing DQ GI values assigned by independent groups with values linked by us. The ecological correlation between DQ and 24-HDR was good for GL (overall r = 0.76; P < 0.005) and moderate for GI (r = 0.57; P < 0.05). Mean GI/GL differences between DQ and 24-HDR were significant for most centers. GL but not GI from DQ was highly correlated with total carbohydrate (r = 0.98 and 0.15, respectively; P < 0.0001) and this was higher for starch (r = 0.72; P < 0.0001) than for sugars (r = 0.36; P < 0.0001). The inter-rater and inter-method variations were considerable for GI (weighted kappa coefficients of 0.49 and 0.65 for inter-rater and 0.25 for inter-method variation, respectively) but only mild for GL (weighted kappa coefficients > 0.80). A more consistent methodology to attribute GI values to foods and validated DQ is needed to derive meaningful GI/GL estimates for nutritional epidemiology.
|
|
