Psychometric properties of the German teen and parent versions of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID).

The negative impact of psychosocial burden in connection with the treatment of Type 1 diabetes (T1D) indicates the need for regular screening of diabetes distress in adolescents with T1D and their parents. Psychometric properties of the German versions of Problem Areas in Diabetes scale-Teen (PAID-T) and Parent (P-PAID-T) are examined in order to provide a clinical screening tool. Linguistically translated questionnaires were used in a multicenter study with 459 families. Confirmatory factor analysis, validity, and reliability were examined. Teens (42.8% female) had a mean age of 14.7 years. Most parent-caregivers were mothers (74.4%) and were born in Germany (83.1%). Results corroborate the three-factor model for the PAID-T with acceptable model fit, and convergent and discriminant validity was observed. The four-factor model for parents was also supported but had inadequate discriminant validity in this study. Teen and parent scores showed excellent Cronbach's α = 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. The PAID-T and P-PAID-T scores were positively correlated with HbA1c (rs = .343 and .252, respectively, p < .001) and negatively correlated with treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) and KIDSCREEN-10 index (teens: rs = -.545 and -.575; parents: rs = -.563 and -.489, respectively, all p < .001). The P-PAID-T correlated positively with depressive symptoms measured in Patient Health Questionnaire -9 (rs = .537, p < .001). The German versions of PAID-T and P-PAID-T produced scores that demonstrated good reliability and validity. Like the original English versions, the German versions are useful to detect diabetes-specific distress in families and to tailor interventions for affected teenagers and their parents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Tailoring implementation interventions of different order in infection prevention and control: A cascadic logic model (IPC-CASCADE).

Implementation interventions in infection prevention and control (IPC) differ by recipients. The two target groups are healthcare workers directly involved in patient care ("frontline") and IPC professionals as proxy agents, that is, implementation support practitioners. While both types of implementation interventions aim to promote compliance with clinical interventions to prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAI), their tailoring may be vastly different, for example, due to different behavioural outcomes. Additionally, IPC teams, as recipients of empowering tailored interventions, are under-researched. To overcome this gap and improve conceptual clarity, we proposed a cascadic logic model for tailored IPC interventions (IPC-CASCADE). In the model, we distinguished between interventions by IPC professionals targeting clinicians and those targeting IPC professionals (first- and second-order implementation interventions, respectively). Tailoring implies selecting behaviour change techniques matched to prospectively-assessed determinants of either clinician compliance (in first-order interventions) or interventions by IPC professionals for frontline workers (in second-order interventions). This interventional cascade is embedded in the prevailing healthcare system. IPC-CASCADE is horizontally structured over time and vertically structured by hierarchy or leadership roles. IPC-CASCADE aims to highlight the potential of increasing the impact of tailored interventions by IPC professionals for clinicians (to improve their compliance) via tailored interventions for IPC professionals (to improve their work as proxy agents). It underlines the links that IPC professionals define between macro contexts (healthcare and hospitals) and frontline workers in HAI prevention. It is specific, i.e., "tailored" to IPC, and expected to assist implementation science to better conceptualise tailoring.