Revising the Diabetes Distress Scale for Use Among Adults in the Dominican Republic: Findings From Cognitive Interviews.
Deshira D Wallace, Ivania Núñez, Clare Barrington
PMID 36218379WHAT IT FOUND
Adults in the Dominican Republic found the Spanish Diabetes Distress Scale confusing.
They preferred simpler phrases, split double items, and fewer response choices. The revised scale sounded clearer to participants, but its accuracy was not tested.
Key findings
01Original Spanish Diabetes Distress Scale items caused comprehension problems: 9 of 20 participants struggled with blood glucose wording, 16 of 20 struggled with diabetes regimen wording, and 9 of 20 struggled with healthy dietary regimen wording.
02The revised scale split the mental and physical exhaustion item and the friends or family misunderstanding item.
03The revised scale used 5 response options and 19 items.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The interviews were only with 20 participants from one rural clinic in the Cibao region, so they may not represent Dominican adults who do not attend a diabetes-specific center. Audio was recorded for only 15 of 20 participants and was not transcribed, so the analysis relied on notes and hand-recorded responses. The paper did not test the revised scale's reliability, validity, or accuracy in a larger sample. Because participants all received care at a diabetes clinic, provider-related distress may be lower than in people without such care. The scale was applied verbally, so findings may not transfer to self-administered written use.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and said the research received no specific grant from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the revised scale as validated or accurate. It was only cognitively tested with 20 participants, and the paper calls for larger quantitative testing.