You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Psychometric properties of the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) in Urdu
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-017-0776-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allah Bukhsh, Shaun Wen Huey Lee, Priyia Pusparajah, Andreas Schmitt, Tahir Mehmood Khan |
| Abstract |
Numerous study tools on diabetes self-care have been introduced; however, most existing tools do not show expectable and meaningful correlations with patients' glycaemic control. The Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) was designed to appraise self-care activities which can predict glycaemic control outcomes. However, this tool has not been validated in Pakistan. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and examine the psychometric properties of the Urdu version of DSMQ among type 2 diabetes patients. Standard forward-backward translation was used to translate the DSMQ into Urdu language. A convenience sample of 130 patients with type 2 diabetes was collected to assess the Urdu version's psychometric properties. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's coefficient α and validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and criterion-related correlations. High internal consistency was found for all DSMQ scales (Sum scale: α = 0.96, Glucose Management: 0.91; Dietary Control: 0.88; Physical Activity: 0.89; Health-Care Use: 0.73). The DSMQ subscales showed significant correlations with HbA1c (Glucose Management: -0.75; Dietary Control: -0.76; Physical Activity: -0.71; Health-Care Use: -0.64; Sum Scale: -0.78; all p < 0.001). However, when associations with HbA1c were assessed in one multiple linear regression model, only Glucose Management and Dietary Control were significantly associated with lower HbA1c values (Beta = -0.42, p = 0.004 and Beta = -0.30, p = 0.028, respectively), while Physical Activity and Health-Care Use were not (p > 0.05). Adequate fit to the data was achieved for single factor model after successively modelling all significant correlations between the items' error terms, with Chi(2) = 106.6, df = 84, p = 0.049; TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99 and RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI 0.01-0.07). Whereas a comparatively lower fit indices to data were observed in case of four factor model. The findings support the Urdu version of the DSMQ as a reliable and valid instrument for assessing self-care activities associated with glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Researcher | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 48 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 19% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 47 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,917,778
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,512
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,427
of 324,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#37
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.