An Expert Opinion on “Glycemic Happiness”: Delineating the Concept and Determinant Factors for Persons with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The importance of the psychological impact of diabetes is globally well-documented. Evidence suggests that there is a high level of psychosocial burden of diabetes in India. Moreover, there is a lack of relevant knowledge among the patients and caregivers regarding the psychological impact of diabetes and how to cope with it, as compared to the majority of other countries. “Happiness of the patient” is an essential component of diabetes management, which potentially affects the treatment outcome, treatment adherence, self-care, and lifelong management of diabetes. Although several validated tools and scales exist for measuring psychological outcomes both in patients and physicians, tools to assess “happiness in diabetes care” are still lacking. With this background, an expert group meeting was held in India in September 2019, involving nine expert diabetologists and endocrinologists across the country to discuss the concept of “glycemic happiness”. This article summarizes the expert opinion on the factors affecting psychological outcomes in diabetes, introduces the concept of glycemic happiness, describes available scales and tools to measure general happiness, and delineates the five sets of questionnaires developed with questions that may help correlate with “glycemic happiness”. The questionnaires are based on a five-point Likert method. The experts also discussed and decided upon the study design for a proposed observational survey to assess glycemic happiness of persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on the developed five sets of questionnaires. Given the huge burden of diabetes in India, the introduction of the concept of glycemic happiness will help in the optimization of diabetes care in the country.

Related collections

Most cited references 44

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature.

Christian Topp, Søren Dinesen Østergaard, Susan Søndergaard … (2015)

The 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) is among the most widely used questionnaires assessing subjective psychological well-being. Since its first publication in 1998, the WHO-5 has been translated into more than 30 languages and has been used in research studies all over the world. We now provide a systematic review of the literature on the WHO-5.

0 comments Cited 995 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the diabetes distress scale.

William H. Polonsky, Lawrence Fisher, Jay Earles … (2005)

The purpose of this study was to describe the development of the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), a new instrument for the assessment of diabetes-related emotional distress, based on four independent patient samples. In consultation with patients and professionals from multiple disciplines, a preliminary scale of 28 items was developed, based a priori on four distress-related domains: emotional burden subscale, physician-related distress subscale, regimen-related distress subscale, and diabetes-related interpersonal distress. The new instrument was included in a larger battery of questionnaires used in diabetes studies at four diverse sites: waiting room at a primary care clinic (n = 200), waiting room at a diabetes specialty clinic (n = 179), a diabetes management study program (n = 167), and an ongoing diabetes management program (n = 158). Exploratory factor analyses revealed four factors consistent across sites (involving 17 of the 28 items) that matched the critical content domains identified earlier. The correlation between the 28-item and 17-item scales was very high (r = 0.99). The mean correlation between the 17-item total score (DDS) and the four subscales was high (r = 0.82), but the pattern of interscale correlations suggested that the subscales, although not totally independent, tapped into relatively different areas of diabetes-related distress. Internal reliability of the DDS and the four subscales was adequate (alpha > 0.87), and validity coefficients yielded significant linkages with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, meal planning, exercise, and total cholesterol. Insulin users evidenced the highest mean DDS total scores, whereas diet-controlled subjects displayed the lowest scores (P < 0.001). The DDS has a consistent, generalizable factor structure and good internal reliability and validity across four different clinical sites. The new instrument may serve as a valuable measure of diabetes-related emotional distress for use in research and clinical practice.

0 comments Cited 431 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning

James Mundt, Isaac Marks, M. Katherine Shear … (2002)

Patients' perspectives concerning impaired functioning provide important information. To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Data from two studies were analysed. Reliability analyses included internal scale consistency, test – retest and parallel forms. Convergent and criterion validities were examined with respect to disorder severity. Cronbach's α measure of internal scale consistency ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Test – retest correlation was 0.73. Interactive voice response administrations of the WSAS gave correlations of 0.81 and 0.86 with clinician interviews. Correlations of WSAS with severity of depression and obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms were 0.76 and 0.61, respectively. The scores were sensitive to patient differences in disorder severity and treatment-related change. The WSAS is a simple, reliable and valid measure of impaired functioning. It is a sensitive and useful outcome measure offering the potential for readily interpretable comparisons across studies and disorders.