This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rubin, R. R. Articles by Peyrot, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rubin, R. R. Articles by Peyrot, M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Diabetes Type 1 Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Psychometric Properties of an Instrument for Assessing Treatment Satisfaction Associated With Pramlintide Use

From the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (Dr Rubin, Dr Peyrot) and Loyola College (Dr Peyrot), Baltimore, Maryland.

Correspondence to Richard Roy Rubin, PhD, 946 E. Piney Hill Road, Monkton, MD 21111 (rrubin4{at}jhmi.edu).

Background

The clinical benefits of any new treatment depend substantially on patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction, because only well-accepted treatments will be widely used. Thus, it is important to understand how patients experience a new treatment.

Objective

This study assessed the psychometric properties of a questionnaire (PRAM-TSQ) designed to measure treatment satisfaction in patients using pramlintide (an analog of amylin, a glucoregulatory hormone co-secreted with insulin), which is designed to improve glucose control.

Methods

Patients with diabetes completed the 14-item PRAM-TSQ at the end of 2 separate placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials in which they added active or placebo pramlintide to their established insulin regimen. Factor analysis was used to assess item clustering for the PRAM-TSQ, and the Cronbach's measure of inter-item agreement was used to assess scale reliability. PRAM-TSQ validity was assessed by comparing scores between treatment arms, and effect sizes were measured by the statistic. Validity was also assessed by associations (Pearson correlations) between the PRAM-TSQ and clinical study outcomes (end of study values and during study changes in clinical measures: postprandial glucose [PPG], A1C, weight, and insulin requirements).

Results

Scaling revealed 4 PRAM-TSQ components: Global Benefits, Specific Benefits, Absence of Side Effects, Treatment Preference. The total composite PRAM-TSQ had good reliability in both studies (type 1 = .93; type 2 = .94); subscale reliabilities ranged from .65 to 94. Composite scores differed for pramlintide-treated and placebo-treated patients (type 1 P < .01; type 2 P < .05), and were associated with lower PPG, weight, and insulin requirements (all P < .05). Results were similar for PRAM-TSQ subscales assessing Global Benefits and Treatment Preference; Specific Benefits subscale scores were associated with lower PPG and weight (all P < .05).

Conclusions

The PRAM-TSQ shows evidence of being a valid, reliable instrument for assessing treatment satisfaction in patients using pramlintide. The subscales are comprehensive and sensitive to the known potential effects of pramlintide treatment. Diabetes educators can use patient responses to the PRAM-TSQ to facilitate treatment adherence by reminding patients of treatment benefits they experience and by helping patients overcome negative effects they report.

The Diabetes Educator, Vol. 35, No. 1, 136-146 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0145721708326989


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Peyrot and R. R. Rubin How Does Treatment Satisfaction Work?: Modeling determinants of treatment satisfaction and preference Diabetes Care, August 1, 2009; 32(8): 1411 - 1417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]