The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on diabetes care: the perspective of healthcare providers across Europe.

AIMS: Covid-19 caused changes on the delivery of diabetes care. This study aimed to explore perceptions of healthcare providers across Europe concerning 1) the impact of covid-19 on delivery of diabetes care; 2) impact of changes in diabetes care on experienced workload; 3) experiences with video consultation in diabetes care. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey among healthcare providers in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Turkey, Ukraine and Sweden, with a focus on primary care. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 180 healthcare providers. During the COVID-19 pandemic 57.1% of respondents provided less diabetes care and 72.8% observed a negative impact on people with diabetes. More than half of respondents (61.9%) expressed worries to some extent about getting overloaded by work. Although the vast majority considered their work meaningful (85.6%). Almost half of healthcare providers (49.4%) thought that after the pandemic video-consultation could be blended with face-to-face contact. CONCLUSIONS: Less diabetes care was delivered and a negative impact on people with diabetes was observed by healthcare providers. Despite healthcare providers' feeling overloaded, mental wellbeing seemed unaffected. Video consultations were seen as having potential. Given the remaining covid-19 risks and from the interest of proactive management of people with diabetes, these findings urge for further exploration of incorporating video consultation in diabetes care.

Graded response model fit, measurement invariance and (comparative) precision of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity V2.0 item bank in patients with upper extremity disorders.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity (DF-PROMIS-UE) V2.0 item bank was recently developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). Unknown for this bank are: (1) if it is legitimate to calculate IRT-based scores for short forms and Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs), which requires that the items meet the assumptions of and fit the IRT-model (Graded Response Model [GRM]);(2) if it is legitimate to compare (sub) groups of patients using this measure, which requires measurement invariance; and (3) the precision of the estimated patients' scores for patients with different levels of functioning and compared to legacy measures. Aims were to evaluate (1) the assumptions of and fit to the GRM, (2) measurement invariance and (3) (comparative) precision of the DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected in Dutch patients with upper extremity disorders. Assessed were IRT-assumptions (unidimensionality [bi-factor analysis], local independence [residual correlations], monotonicity [coefficient H]), GRM item fit, measurement invariance (absence of Differential Item Functioning [DIF] due to age, gender, center, duration, and location of complaints) and precision (standard error of IRT-based scores across levels of functioning). To study measurement invariance for language [Dutch vs. English], additional US data were used. Legacy instruments were the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the QuickDASH and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ). RESULTS: In total 521 Dutch (mean age ± SD = 51 ± 17 years, 49% female) and 246 US patients (mean age ± SD = 48 ± 14 years, 69% female) participated. The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank was sufficiently unidimensional (Omega-H = 0.80, Explained Common Variance = 0.68), had negligible local dependence (four out of 1035 correlations > 0.20), good monotonicity (H = 0.63), good GRM fit (no misfitting items) and demonstrated sufficient measurement invariance. Precise estimates (Standard Error < 3.2) were obtained for most patients (7-item short form, 88.5%; standard CAT, 91.3%; and, fixed 7-item CAT, 87.6%). The DASH displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT, the QuickDASH displayed comparable reliability. The MHQ-ADL displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT for T-scores between 28 and 50. For patients with low function, the DF-PROMIS-UE measures performed better. CONCLUSIONS: The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank showed sufficient psychometric properties in Dutch patients with UE disorders.

Reliability and Validity of the Dutch Translation of the Filial Maturity Measure in Informal Caregivers.

This study explored the reliability and validity of a Dutch translation of the 10-item Filial Maturity Measure (FMM) in a sample of Dutch informal caregivers. The FMM was translated with a forward-backward method and completed by 93 informal caregivers (62 % response rate) with a need dependent parent. Dimensionality of the Dutch FMM was examined by principal component and internal consistency analyses. Criterion validity was examined by assessing correlations with filial love, filial autonomy and level of closeness between parent and child. Construct validity was tested by examining associations with the traits openness and agreeableness. In addition, the relationship with state and trait affectivity was explored. After removal of the item "I worry about turning out like my parent", the original dimensional structure, internal consistency, criterion and construct validity were confirmed. Additional exploration of the relation between the FMM subscales and trait and state affectivity scales demonstrated that filial maturity is at most weakly associated with trait affectivity. Both FMM scales showed a positive partial correlation with negative state affectivity. The Dutch FMM appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring filial maturity of informal caregivers who provide care to their need dependent parent. The (non-)functioning of one item pointed to the necessity to validate the FMM, but also questionnaires in general in different populations.