AIM: To determine the psychometric properties and theoretical grounding of instruments that evaluate self-care behaviour or barriers in people with type 2 diabetes. BACKGROUND: There are many instruments designed to evaluate self-care behaviour or barriers in this population, but knowledge about their psychometric validation processes is lacking. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search for psychometric or validation studies published between January 1990-December 2012. We carried out searches in Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuolid, BibliPRO and Google SCHOLAR to identify instruments that evaluated self-care behaviours or barriers to diabetes self-care. REVIEW METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: Psychometric or clinimetric validation studies that included patients with type 2 diabetes (exclusively or partially) and which analysed self-care behaviour or barriers to self-care and proxies like self-efficacy or empowerment, from a multidimensional approach. Language: Spanish or English. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data using Terwee's proposed criteria: psychometrics properties, dimensionality, theoretical ground and population used for validation through each included instrument. RESULTS: Sixteen instruments achieved the inclusion criteria for the review. We detected important methodological flaws in many of the selected instruments. Only the Self-management Profile for Type 2 Diabetes and Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale met half of Terwee's quality criteria. CONCLUSION: There are no instruments for identifying self-care behaviours or barriers elaborated with a strong validation process. Further research should be carried out to provide patients, clinicians and researchers with valid and reliable instruments that are methodologically solid and theoretically grounded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caro et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: