Assessing Patient-reported Outcomes for Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: the Psychometric Properties of the INSPIRE Measures

Overview

Journal Diabet Med

Specialty Endocrinology

Date 2019 Feb 15

PMID 30761592

Citations 39

Authors

J Weissberg-Benchell

J B Shapiro

K Hood

L M Laffel

D Naranjo

K Miller

K Barnard

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: Participants in clinical trials assessing automated insulin delivery systems report perceived benefits and burdens that reflect their experiences and may predict their likelihood of uptake and continued use of this novel technology. Despite the importance of understanding their perspectives, there are no available validated and reliable measures assessing the psychosocial aspects of automated insulin delivery systems. The present study assesses the initial psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures, which were developed for youth and adults with Type 1 diabetes, as well as parents and partners.

Methods: Data from 292 youth, 159 adults, 150 parents of youth and 149 partners of individuals recruited from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Registry were analysed. Participants completed INSPIRE questionnaires and measures of quality of life, fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, glucose monitoring satisfaction. Exploratory factor analysis assessed factor structures. Associations between INSPIRE scores and other measures, HbA , and technology use assessed concurrent and discriminant validity.

Results: Youth, adult, parent and partner measures assess positive expectancies of automated insulin delivery systems. Measures range from 17 to 22 items and are reliable (α = 0.95-0.97). Youth, adult and parent measures are unidimensional; the partner measure has a two-factor structure (perceptions of impact on partners versus the person with diabetes). Measures showed concurrent and discriminant validity.

Conclusions: INSPIRE measures assessing the positive expectancies of automated insulin delivery systems for youth, adults, parents and partners have meaningful factor structures and are internally consistent. The developmentally sensitive INSPIRE measures offer added value as clinical trials test newer systems, systems become commercially available and clinicians initiate using these systems.

Citing Articles

Simplified meal announcement study (SMASH) using hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled two-centre crossover trial.

Laesser C, Piazza C, Schorno N, Nick F, Kastrati L, Zueger T Diabetologia. 2024; 68(2):295-307.

PMID: 39560745 PMC: 11732900. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-024-06319-w.

Effect of automated insulin delivery systems on person-reported outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Roos T, Hermanns N, Gross C, Kulzer B, Haak T, Ehrmann D EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 76:102852.

PMID: 39364272 PMC: 11447321. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102852.

Future acceptance of automated insulin delivery systems in youths with type 1 diabetes: validation of the Italian artificial pancreas-acceptance measure.

Franceschi R, Pertile R, Marigliano M, Mozzillo E, Maffeis C, Zaffani S Acta Diabetol. 2024; 62(2):177-183.

PMID: 39126517 PMC: 11861114. DOI: 10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9.

Protocol for a prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial comparing standard care with Closed lOoP In chiLdren and yOuth with Type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control: the CO-PILOT trial.

Boucsein A, Zhou Y, Haszard J, Jefferies C, Wiltshire E, Styles S J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2024; 23(1):1397-1407.

PMID: 38932805 PMC: 11196497. DOI: 10.1007/s40200-024-01397-4.

Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal HbA During Prior Use of Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Christensen M, Ranjan A, Rytter K, McCarthy O, Schmidt S, Norgaard K J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024; :19322968241242399.

PMID: 38600822 PMC: 11571454. DOI: 10.1177/19322968241242399.

References

Hendrieckx C, Poole L, Sharifi A, Jayawardene D, Loh M, Horsburgh J . "It Is Definitely a Game Changer": A Qualitative Study of Experiences with In-home Overnight Closed-Loop Technology Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017; 19(7):410-416. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2017.0007. View

Topp C, Ostergaard S, Sondergaard S, Bech P . The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015; 84(3):167-76. DOI: 10.1159/000376585. View

Thabit H, Lubina-Solomon A, Stadler M, Leelarathna L, Walkinshaw E, Pernet A . Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014; 2(9):701-9. PMC: 4165604. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70114-7. View

Wong J, Dolan L, Yang T, Hood K . Insulin pump use and glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: Predictors of change in method of insulin delivery across two years. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014; 16(8):592-9. PMC: 4458222. DOI: 10.1111/pedi.12221. View

Markowitz J, Volkening L, Butler D, Antisdel-Lomaglio J, Anderson B, Laffel L . Re-examining a measure of diabetes-related burden in parents of young people with Type 1 diabetes: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Survey - Parent Revised version (PAID-PR). Diabet Med. 2011; 29(4):526-30. PMC: 3510480. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03434.x. View

Barnard K, Wysocki T, Ully V, Mader J, Pieber T, Thabit H . Closing the Loop in Adults, Children and Adolescents With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Under Free Living Conditions: A Psychosocial Substudy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017; 11(6):1080-1088. PMC: 5951034. DOI: 10.1177/1932296817702656. View

Kovatchev B, Cheng P, Anderson S, Pinsker J, Boscari F, Buckingham B . Feasibility of Long-Term Closed-Loop Control: A Multicenter 6-Month Trial of 24/7 Automated Insulin Delivery. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016; 19(1):18-24. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2016.0333. View

Polonsky W, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman S . Development of a New Measure for Assessing Glucose Monitoring Device-Related Treatment Satisfaction and Quality of Life. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015; 17(9):657-63. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2014.0417. View

Hood K, Butler D, Volkening L, Anderson B, Laffel L . The Blood Glucose Monitoring Communication questionnaire: an instrument to measure affect specific to blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27(11):2610-5. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.11.2610. View

10.

Barnard K, Wysocki T, Thabit H, Evans M, Amiel S, Heller S . Psychosocial aspects of closed- and open-loop insulin delivery: closing the loop in adults with Type 1 diabetes in the home setting. Diabet Med. 2015; 32(5):601-8. DOI: 10.1111/dme.12706. View

11.

Cox D, Irvine A, Gonder-Frederick L, Nowacek G, Butterfield J . Fear of hypoglycemia: quantification, validation, and utilization. Diabetes Care. 1987; 10(5):617-21. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.10.5.617. View

12.

Russell S, El-Khatib F, Sinha M, Magyar K, McKeon K, Goergen L . Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(4):313-325. PMC: 4183762. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1314474. View

13.

Fisher L, Polonsky W, Hessler D, Masharani U, Blumer I, Peters A . Understanding the sources of diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2015; 29(4):572-7. PMC: 4414881. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.01.012. View

14.

Weissberg-Benchell J, Shapiro J, Hood K, Laffel L, Naranjo D, Miller K . Assessing patient-reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures. Diabet Med. 2019; 36(5):644-652. PMC: 6593869. DOI: 10.1111/dme.13930. View

15.

Wong J, Boyle C, DiMeglio L, Mastrandrea L, Abel K, Cengiz E . Evaluation of Pump Discontinuation and Associated Factors in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016; 11(2):224-232. PMC: 5478021. DOI: 10.1177/1932296816663963. View

16.

Polonsky W, Fisher L, Hessler D, Johnson N . Emotional Distress in the Partners of Type 1 Diabetes Adults: Worries About Hypoglycemia and Other Key Concerns. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016; 18(5):292-7. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2015.0451. View

17.

Varni J, Seid M, Kurtin P . PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001; 39(8):800-12. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200108000-00006. View

18.

Naranjo D, Suttiratana S, Iturralde E, Barnard K, Weissberg-Benchell J, Laffel L . What End Users and Stakeholders Want From Automated Insulin Delivery Systems. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40(11):1453-1461. PMC: 5864142. DOI: 10.2337/dc17-0400. View

19.

Vesco A, Jedraszko A, Garza K, Weissberg-Benchell J . Continuous Glucose Monitoring Associated With Less Diabetes-Specific Emotional Distress and Lower A1c Among Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018; 12(4):792-799. PMC: 6134305. DOI: 10.1177/1932296818766381. View

20.

Russell S, Beck R . Design Considerations for Artificial Pancreas Pivotal Studies. Diabetes Care. 2016; 39(7):1161-7. DOI: 10.2337/dc15-2449. View