Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2022; 17(02): 129-135
DOI: 10.1055/a-1492-5294
Originalarbeit

Development and Psychometric Assessment of a Manufacturer Independent Knowledge Questionnaire on Real Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for insulin-treated People with Diabetes

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
1   Medizinische Psychologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Germany
,
2   Institut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Germany
,
Marita Wernsing
3   Diabeteszentrum, Christliches Krankenhaus Quakenbrück gemeinnützige GmbH, Quakenbrück, Germany
,
Klaus-Martin Roelver
3   Diabeteszentrum, Christliches Krankenhaus Quakenbrück gemeinnützige GmbH, Quakenbrück, Germany
,
1   Medizinische Psychologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Germany
,
Martin Holder
4   Kinderklinik, Klinikum Stuttgart Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Lutz Heinemann
5   Science Consulting in Diabetes GmbH, Kaarst, Germany
,
1   Medizinische Psychologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Germany
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background To benefit from real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM), users need practical skills and in-depth knowledge to analyze the glucose data appropriately and adapt insulin therapy accordingly. To assess the user’s knowledge about rtCGM, a psychometric knowledge test was developed and evaluated.

Method Experts on the use of rtCGM systems defined central knowledge contents in a Delphi process and developed a knowledge test comprising 40 multiple-choice items. For test-statistical review, people with insulin-treated diabetes and members of diabetes teams answered the knowledge test.

Results The 122 diabetes team members (age 46 (11) years; mean (SD)) and the 111 people with insulin-treated diabetes (age 42 (14) years, diabetes duration 20 (14) years, users of insulin pumps 64 %, previous usage of rtCGM 38 %, HbA1c 8.0 % [95 % CI 7.7–8.3] (64 mmol/mol [60–67]) had different levels of experiences using rtCGM systems. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the knowledge test was 0.92 for the whole sample, for people with diabetes 0.94, and for diabetes team members 0.84. Item difficulty ranged between 0.12 and 0.88 in people with diabetes and between 0.27 and 0.97 among diabetes team members. On average, people with diabetes answered 24.1 (9.9) items correctly, diabetes team members 29.2 (5.2) (p < 0.001); people with diabetes and previous rtCGM-experience had a higher knowledge compared to people without previous experience (29.2 (6.2) vs. 21.0 (10.4) (p = 0.001)). The quality of glucose control (measured by HbA1c) of the people with diabetes was significantly associated with the sum-score of the questionnaire (rho = –0.48, p < 0.001).

Conclusion The “rtCGM-Profi-Check” knowledge test provides high internal consistency, high selectivity, and content validity. It is suitable for objective, reliable, and valid assessment of the indispensable knowledge of people with diabetes to use different rtCGM systems successfully. The questionnaire is manufacturer-independent and is suitable to evaluate the needs and success of rtCGM education among persons with diabetes.



Publication History

Received: 12 February 2021

Accepted: 26 April 2021

Article published online:
02 June 2021

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Girardin CM, Huot C, Gonthier M. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of biochemical perspectives and clinical use in type 1 diabetes. Clin Biochem 2009; 42: 136-142 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2008.09.112.
  • 2 Buckingham B, Caswell K, Wilson DM. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2007; 14: 288-295 DOI: 10.1097/MED.0b013e32825a675e.
  • 3 Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV. Sensor-augmented pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2008; 15: 118-122 DOI: 10.1097/MED.0b013e3282f7960b.
  • 4 Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K. et al. DIAMOND Study Group. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 24: 371-378 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.19975.
  • 5 Šoupal J, Petruželková L, Grunberger G. et al. Glycemic outcomes in adults with T1D are impacted more by continuous glucose monitoring than by insulin delivery method: 3 years of follow-up from the COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Care 2020; 43: 37-43 DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0888.
  • 6 Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB. et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs Conventional Therapy for Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017; 317: 379-387 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.19976.
  • 7 Tauschmann M, Hermann JM, Freiberg C. et al. Reduction in diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia in pediatric type 1 diabetes during the first year of continuous glucose monitoring: a multicenter analysis of 3,553 subjects from the DPV registry. Diabetes Care 2020; 43: e40-e42 DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1358.
  • 8 Pickup JC, Ford HollowayM, Samsi K. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a qualitative framework analysis of patient narratives. Diabetes Care 2015; 38: 544-550 DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1855.
  • 9 Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM. et al. State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21: 66-72 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2018.0384.
  • 10 Wong JC, Foster NC, Maahs DM. et al. T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 2702-2709 DOI: 10.2337/dc14-0303.
  • 11 Lind M, Ólafsdóttir AF, Hirsch IB. et al. Sustained Intensive Treatment and Long-term Effects on HbA1c Reduction (SILVER Study) by CGM in People With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With MDI. Diabetes Care 2021; 44: 141-149 DOI: 10.2337/dc20-1468.
  • 12 Parkin CG, Graham C, Smolskis J. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use in Type 1 Diabetes: Longitudinal Analysis Demonstrates Meaningful Improvements in HbA1c and Reductions in Health Care Utilization. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 522-528 DOI: 10.1177/1932296817693253.
  • 13 Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D. et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 1367-1377 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30297-6.
  • 14 Berens EM, Vogt D, Messer M. et al. Health literacy among different age groups in Germany: results of a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health 2016; 16: 1151 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3810-6.
  • 15 Esen İ, Aktürk Esen S. Health Literacy and Quality of Life in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Cureus 2020; 12: e10860 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.10860.
  • 16 Messer LH, Tanenbaum ML, Cook PF. et al. Cost, Hassle, and On-Body Experience: Barriers to Diabetes Device Use in Adolescents and Potential Intervention Targets. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020; 22: 760-767 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0509.
  • 17 G-BA (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Richtlinie Methoden vertragsärztliche Versorgung: Kontinuierliche interstitielle Glukosemessung mit Real-Time-Messgeräten (rtCGM) zur Therapiesteuerung bei Patientinnen und Patienten mit insulinpflichtigem Diabetes mellitus (2016). https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-2623/2016-06-16_MVV-RL_rtCGM_BAnz.pdf (Stand: 01.2.2020)
  • 18 Heinemann L, Deiss D, Siegmund T. et al. Practical recommendations for glucose measurement, glucose monitoring and glucose control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2018; 126: 411-428 DOI: 10.1055/a-0586-5302.
  • 19 Lange K. Psychosoziale Aspekte aktueller Diabetestechnologien. Diabetologe 2016; 12: 566-571 DOI: 10.1007/s11428-016-0159-5.
  • 20 Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18 (Suppl. 02) 3-13 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2015.0417.
  • 21 Patton SR, Clements MA. Psychological reactions associated with continuous glucose monitoring in youth. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 656-661 DOI: 10.1177/1932296816638109.
  • 22 Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group, Beck RW, Buckingham B, Miller K et al. Factors predictive of use and of benefit from continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 1947-1953 DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0889.
  • 23 Polonsky WH, Hessler D, Ruedy KJ. et al. The Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Markers of Quality of Life in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Further Findings From the DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 736-741 DOI: 10.2337/dc17-0133.
  • 24 Kubiak T, Mann CG, Barnard K. et al. Psychosocial aspects of continuous glucose monitoring: connecting to the patients’ experience. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 859-863 DOI: 10.1177/1932296816651450.
  • 25 Gehr B, Holder M, Kulzer B. et al. SPECTRUM Schulungs- und Behandlungsprogramm zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung (CGM) für Menschen mit Diabetes. 2. Aufl.. Mainz: Kirchheim; 2017. ISBN: 978-3-87409-645-4
  • 26 Gehr B, Holder M, Kulzer B. et al. SPECTRUM: A training and treatment program for continuous glucose monitoring for all age groups. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 284-289 DOI: 10.1177/1932296816661735.
  • 27 Holder M, Gehr B, von Sengbusch S. et al. CGM Schulung in der pädiatrischen Diabetologie: SPECTRUM – ein strukturiertes Schulungs- und Behandlungsprogramm zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 2017; 165: 882-887 DOI: 10.1007/s00112-016-0192-x.
  • 28 Schlüter S, Freckmann G, Heinemann L. et al. Evaluation of the SPECTRUM training programme for real-time continuous glucose monitoring: a real-world multicentre prospective study in 120 adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2021; 38: e14467 DOI: 10.1111/dme.14467.
  • 29 Niederberger M, Renn O. Das klassische Delphi-Verfahren: Konzept und Vorgehensweise. In: Das Gruppendelphi-Verfahren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-18755-2_2
  • 30 Moosbrugger H, Kelava A. Hrsg. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. 2. Aufl.. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-61532-4
  • 31 Lienert GA, Raatz U. Testaufbau und Testanalyse. 6. Aufl.. Weinheim: Beltz PVU; 1998
  • 32 Eid M, Schmidt K. Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. 1. Aufl.. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2014. doi:302161_MP-ID:302161_M
  • 33 Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM. et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: 1593-1603 DOI: 10.2337/dci19-0028.
  • 34 Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW. et al. FLAIR Study Group. A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 2021; 397: 208-219 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32514-9.
  • 35 Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM. et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: 1593-1603 DOI: 10.2337/dci19-0028.
  • 36 Heinemann L, Deiss D, Siegmund T. et al. Glucose Measurement and Control in Patients with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2019; 127 (Suppl. 01) S8-S26 DOI: 10.1055/a-1018-9090.
  • 37 Fleming GA, Petrie JR, Bergenstal RM. et al. Diabetes Digital App Technology: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetes Care 2020; 43: 250-260 DOI: 10.2337/dci19-0062.