Translation and validation of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients. Issue 2 (20th July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Kam Pui
• Is Part Of: Journal of diabetes investigation. Volume 9:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 311
• Page End: 320
• Publication Date: 2017-07-20
• Subjects: Psychological insulin resistance -- Psychometric validation -- Transcultural translation; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Diabetes -- Research -- Periodicals; Diabetes Mellitus -- Periodicals; 616.462005
• DOI: 10.1111/jdi.12704
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2040-1116

Abstract

Abstract: Aims/Introduction: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus often delay the initiation or titration of insulin treatment due to psychological factors. This phenomenon is referred to as psychological insulin resistance (PIR). The Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS) is a 20‐item instrument for assessing PIR. A previous Chinese version of the ITAS (C‐ITAS) was found to be subject to problems arising from its translation. The present study aimed to translate and validate this instrument, which will facilitate research and aid in counseling in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: The C‐ITAS was modified to develop the Hong Kong version of the C‐ITAS (C‐ITAS‐HK) according to published guidelines for the translation of transcultural research. A total of 328 diabetes mellitus patients who were followed‐up in 10 different publically funded primary care outpatient clinics were recruited for self‐administration of the C‐ITAS‐HK. Demographic data were recorded, and clinical data (e.g., presence of diabetes mellitus complications) were obtained from case records. The C‐ITAS‐HK results were subjected to psychometric analysis, including the assessment of Cronbach's alpha, factor analysis and test–retest reliability. Results: Factor analysis supported a two‐factor structure with good internal consistency (whole scale 0.846, negative subscale 0.882, positive subscale 0.619). The test–retest reliability correlation coefficients for all items were positive, at 0.871, 0.782, and 0.692 for the whole scale, negative subscale and positive subscale, respectively. The ITAS scores differed significantly between participants with PIR and those without in the expected direction, suggesting good discriminant validity. Conclusions: The C‐ITAS‐HK is a valid tool for measuring and assessing PIR in the Hong Kong primary care diabetes mellitus population.