Perceptions of adults with type 1 diabetes toward diabetes-specific quality of life measures: a survey-based qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaires are commonly used to assess the impact of diabetes and its management on an individual's quality of life. While several valid and reliable measures of diabetes-specific QoL exist, there is no consensus on which to use and in what setting. Furthermore, there is limited evidence of their acceptability to people with diabetes. Our aim was to explore perceptions of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) toward five diabetes-specific QoL measures. METHODS: Adults (aged 18 + years) with T1D living in Australia or the United Kingdom (UK) were eligible to take part in 'YourSAY: QoL', an online cross-sectional survey. Recruitment involved study promotion on diabetes-related websites and social media, as well as direct invitation of people with T1D via a hospital client list (UK only). In random order, participants completed five diabetes-specific QoL measures: Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL-19); Diabetes Care Profile: Social and Personal Factors subscale (DCP); DAWN Impact of Diabetes Profile (DIDP); Diabetes-Specific Quality of Life Scale: Burden Subscale (DSQoLS); Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire (Diabetes QOL-Q). They were invited to provide feedback on each questionnaire in the form of a brief free-text response. Responses were analysed using inductive, thematic template analysis. RESULTS: Of the N = 1,946 adults with T1D who completed the survey, 20% (UK: n = 216, Australia: n = 168) provided qualitative responses about ≥ 1 measure. All measures received both positive and negative feedback, across four themes: (1) clarity and ease of completion, e.g., difficulty isolating impact of diabetes, dislike of hypothetical questions, and preference for 'not applicable' response options; (2) relevance and comprehensiveness, e.g., inclusion of a wide range of aspects of life to improve personal relevance; (3) length and repetition, e.g., length to be balanced against respondent burden; (4) framing and tone, e.g., preference for respectful language and avoidance of extremes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest opportunities to improve the relevance and acceptability of existing diabetes-specific QoL measures, and offer considerations for developing new measures, which need to be better informed by the preferences of people living with diabetes.

A comparison of the acceptability and psychometric properties of scales assessing the impact of type 1 diabetes on quality of life-Results of 'YourSAY: Quality of Life'.

AIMS: To compare the acceptability, reliability and validity of five contemporary diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) scales among adults with type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom and Australia. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes (UK = 1139, Australia = 439) completed a cross-sectional, online survey including ADDQoL-19, DCP, DIDP, DSQOLS and Diabetes QoL-Q, presented in randomised order. After completing each scale, participants rated it for clarity, relevance, ease of completion, length and comprehensiveness. We examined scale acceptability (scale completion and user ratings), response patterns, structure (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and validity (convergent, concurrent, divergent and known groups). To assess cross-country reproducibility, analyses conducted on the UK dataset were replicated in the Australian dataset. RESULTS: Findings were largely consistent between countries. All scales were acceptable to participants: ≥90% completing all items, and ≥80% positive user ratings, except for DSQOLS' length. Scale structure was not supported for the DCP. Overall, in terms of acceptability and psychometric evaluation, the DIDP was the strongest performing scale while the ADDQoL-19 and Diabetes QoL-Q scales also performed well. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the recently developed brief (7 items), neutrally worded DIDP scale is acceptable to adults with type 1 diabetes and has the strongest psychometric performance. However, questionnaire selection should always be considered in the context of the research aims, study design and population, as well as the wider published evidence regarding both the development and responsiveness of the scales.