Cargando…

The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ

BACKGROUND: The results of using status measures to identify any changes in treatment satisfaction strongly suggest a need for specific change instruments designed to overcome the ceiling effects frequently observed at baseline. Status measures may leave little room to show improvement in situations...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bradley, Clare, Plowright, Rosalind, Stewart, John, Valentine, John, Witthaus, Elke
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2170436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17927832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-57
_version_ 1782144892577775616
author Bradley, Clare
Plowright, Rosalind
Stewart, John
Valentine, John
Witthaus, Elke
author_facet Bradley, Clare
Plowright, Rosalind
Stewart, John
Valentine, John
Witthaus, Elke
author_sort Bradley, Clare
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The results of using status measures to identify any changes in treatment satisfaction strongly suggest a need for specific change instruments designed to overcome the ceiling effects frequently observed at baseline. Status measures may leave little room to show improvement in situations where baseline ceiling effects are observed. A change version of the DTSQ (DTSQc) is compared here with the original status (now called DTSQs) version to test the instruments' comparative ability to demonstrate change. METHODS: Two multinational, openlabel, randomised-controlled trials (one for patients with type 1 diabetes, the other for type 2) compared new, longer-acting insulin glargine with standard NPH basal insulin. The DTSQs was completed at baseline and the DTSQs and DTSQc at final visit by 351 English- and German-speaking patients. DTSQc scores were compared with change from baseline for the DTSQs, using 3-way analysis of variance, to examine Questionnaire, Treatment and Ceiling effects (i.e. baseline scores at/near ceiling). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Significant Questionnaire effects and a Questionnaire × Ceiling interaction (p < 0.001) in both trial datasets showed that the DTSQc detected more improvement in Treatment Satisfaction than the DTSQs, especially when patients had DTSQs scores at/near ceiling at baseline. Additionally, significant Treatment effects favouring insulin glargine (p < 0.001) and a Treatment × Questionnaire interaction (p < 0.019), with the DTSQc showing more benefits, were found in the type 1 trial. Results for Perceived Hyper- and Hypoglycaemia also demonstrated important differences between the questionnaires in the detection of treatment effects. Tests of effect sizes showed these differences in response to change to be significantly in favour of the DTSQc. CONCLUSION: The DTSQc, used in conjunction with the DTSQs, overcomes the problem of ceiling effects encountered when only the status measure is used and provides a means for new treatments to show greater value than is possible with the DTSQs alone.
format Text
id pubmed-2170436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-21704362008-01-01 The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ Bradley, Clare Plowright, Rosalind Stewart, John Valentine, John Witthaus, Elke Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: The results of using status measures to identify any changes in treatment satisfaction strongly suggest a need for specific change instruments designed to overcome the ceiling effects frequently observed at baseline. Status measures may leave little room to show improvement in situations where baseline ceiling effects are observed. A change version of the DTSQ (DTSQc) is compared here with the original status (now called DTSQs) version to test the instruments' comparative ability to demonstrate change. METHODS: Two multinational, openlabel, randomised-controlled trials (one for patients with type 1 diabetes, the other for type 2) compared new, longer-acting insulin glargine with standard NPH basal insulin. The DTSQs was completed at baseline and the DTSQs and DTSQc at final visit by 351 English- and German-speaking patients. DTSQc scores were compared with change from baseline for the DTSQs, using 3-way analysis of variance, to examine Questionnaire, Treatment and Ceiling effects (i.e. baseline scores at/near ceiling). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Significant Questionnaire effects and a Questionnaire × Ceiling interaction (p < 0.001) in both trial datasets showed that the DTSQc detected more improvement in Treatment Satisfaction than the DTSQs, especially when patients had DTSQs scores at/near ceiling at baseline. Additionally, significant Treatment effects favouring insulin glargine (p < 0.001) and a Treatment × Questionnaire interaction (p < 0.019), with the DTSQc showing more benefits, were found in the type 1 trial. Results for Perceived Hyper- and Hypoglycaemia also demonstrated important differences between the questionnaires in the detection of treatment effects. Tests of effect sizes showed these differences in response to change to be significantly in favour of the DTSQc. CONCLUSION: The DTSQc, used in conjunction with the DTSQs, overcomes the problem of ceiling effects encountered when only the status measure is used and provides a means for new treatments to show greater value than is possible with the DTSQs alone. BioMed Central 2007-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC2170436/ /pubmed/17927832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-57 Text en Copyright © 2007 Bradley et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Bradley, Clare
Plowright, Rosalind
Stewart, John
Valentine, John
Witthaus, Elke
The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ
title The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ
title_full The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ
title_fullStr The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ
title_full_unstemmed The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ
title_short The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version (DTSQc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original DTSQ
title_sort diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire change version (dtsqc) evaluated in insulin glargine trials shows greater responsiveness to improvements than the original dtsq
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2170436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17927832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-57
work_keys_str_mv AT bradleyclare thediabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT plowrightrosalind thediabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT stewartjohn thediabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT valentinejohn thediabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT witthauselke thediabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT bradleyclare diabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT plowrightrosalind diabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT stewartjohn diabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT valentinejohn diabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq
AT witthauselke diabetestreatmentsatisfactionquestionnairechangeversiondtsqcevaluatedininsulinglarginetrialsshowsgreaterresponsivenesstoimprovementsthantheoriginaldtsq