Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Diabetes Distress Scale for type 2 diabetes and distress levels of the participants

Background/aim: Studies have shown an increased depression rate in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus T2DM compared to the normal population. It is now acknowledged that patients suffer from distress rather than depression. Our aim was to validate the Turkish version of the Diabetes Distress Scale DDS and to show distress levels of the participants. Materials and methods: The scale was translated from English to Turkish by the authors and translated back to English. Between August 2015 and January 2016 all the patients who were referred to the T2DM Clinic of İstanbul Medeniyet University were screened, and eligible patients were recruited. For calculating internal consistency Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used. Results: A total of 205 patients [120 females 58.5% , 85 males 41.5% ] were included. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.874, showing internal consistency. The Spearman Brown correlation coefficient was calculated between the first 9 and second 8 questions as 0.884. Thetotal variances were explained at a level of 66.2% with 4 factors. Sixty-three patients 30% had a score of ≥3, indicating diabetic distress. Correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between total score and HbA1c levels r = 0.152 and P = 0.038 . Conclusion: The Turkish version of the DDS for type 2 diabetes is a reliable tool for assessment of distress levels

Keywords:

Diabetes Distress Scale, Turkish, validation, type 2 diabetes,

PDF

___

1. Guariguata L, Whiting DR, Hambleton I. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2014; 103 (2): 137-149. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.002
2. Zimmet P, Alberti KGMM, Shaw J. Global and societal implications of the diabetes epidemic. Nature 2001; 414 (6865): 782-787.
3. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Psychological issues and treatments for people with diabetes. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2001; 57 (4): 457-478. doi: 10.1002/jclp.1041
4. Roy T, Lloyd CE. Epidemiology of depression and diabetes: a systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders 2012; 142: S8- S21. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(12)70004-6
5. Park M, Katon WJ, Wolf FM. Depression and risk of mortality in individuals with diabetes: a meta-analysis and systematic review. General Hospital Psychiatry 2013; 35 (3): 217-225. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.01.006
6. Fisher L, Skaff MM, Mullan JT. Clinical depression versus distress among patients with type 2 diabetes: not just a question of semantics. Diabetes Care 2007; 30 (3): 542-548. doi: 10.2337/ dc06-1614
7. Fisher L, Mullan JT, Arean P. Diabetes distress but not clinical depression or depressive symptoms is associated with glycemic control in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Diabetes Care 2010; 33 (1): 23-28. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1238
8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013
9. Perrin NED. Diabetes, depression and distress: the 3D-study. An explorative study to inform practice in the identification and management of depression and/or diabetes-specific distress in people with type 2 diabetes. PhD, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, 2017.
10. Sullivan MD, O’Connor P, Feeney P, Hire D, Simmons DL et al. Depression predicts all-cause mortality: epidemiological evaluation from the ACCORD HRQL substudy. Diabetes Care 2012; 35 (8): 1708-1715.
11. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J. Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes development of the diabetes distress scale. Diabetes Care 2005; 28 (3): 626-631. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.3.626
12. Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Comparing five alternative factormodels of the Student Jenkins Activity Survey: separating the wheat from the chaff. Journal of Personality Assessment 1995; 64 (1): 145-158.
13. Graue M, Haugstvedt A, Wentzel-Larsen T, Iversen MM, Karlsen B et al. Diabetes-related emotional distress in adults: reliability and validity of the Norwegian versions of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). International Journal of Nursing Studies 2012; 49 (2): 174-182. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.08.007
14. Erkin G, Ongel K, Mergen H, Yilmazer TT, Mergen BE. Diabetes distress scale-17 implementation among patients with diabetes: Turkish validity and reliability study. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 2016; 66 (6): 662-665.
15. Fisher L, Polonsky WH, Hessler DM, Masharani U, Blumer I et al. Understanding the sources of diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2015; 29 (4): 572-577.
16. Frenzel MP, McCaul KD, Glasgow RE, Schafer LC. The relationship of stress and coping to regimen adherence and glycemic control of diabetes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1988; 6 (1): 77-87.
17. Peyrot M, McMurry JF Jr, Kruger DF. A biopsychosocial model of glycemic control in diabetes: stress, coping and regimen adherence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1999; 40: 141-158.
18. Renn BN, Feliciano L, Segal DL. The bidirectional relationship of depression and diabetes: a systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review 2011; 31 (8): 1239-1246. doi: 10.1016/j. cpr.2011.08.001
19. Surwit RS, Van Tilburg MA, Zucker N, McCaskill CC, Parekh P. Stress management improves long-term glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (1): 30-34.
20. Pliner P, Chaiken S, Flett GL. Gender differences in concern with body weight and physical appearance over the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1990; 16 (2): 263- 273. doi: 10.1177/0146167290162007
21. Ferreira C, Pinto-Gouveia J, Duarte C. Physical appearance as a measure of social ranking: the role of a new scale to understand the relationship between weight and dieting. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 2013; 20 (1): 55-66.
22. Jackson LA. Physical Appearance and Gender. Albany, NY, USA: SUNY Press; 1992.
23. Yavuz DG, Ozcan S, Deyneli O. Adherence to insulin treatment in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients initiated on different insulin regimens. Patient Preference and Adherence 2015; 9: 1225.