↓ Skip to main content

Assessing self-efficacy in type 2 diabetes management: validation of the Italian version of the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale (IT-DMSES)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
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.
Title
Assessing self-efficacy in type 2 diabetes management: validation of the Italian version of the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale (IT-DMSES)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0901-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rossella Messina, Paola Rucci, Jackie Sturt, Tatiana Mancini, Maria Pia Fantini

Abstract

Being highly self-efficacious is a key factor in successful chronic disease self-management. In the context of measuring self-efficacy in type 2 diabetes management, the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale (DMSES) is the most widely used scale. The aim of this study was to adapt the English version of the scale to Italian and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of DMSES in type 2 diabetes (IT-DMSES). We conducted a cross-sectional study of people with type 2 diabetes attending the Endocrine-Metabolic Disease Care Unit of the Internal Medicine Department of San Marino State Hospital between October 2016 and February 2017. Patients completed a socio-demographic and clinical data form, the IT-DMSES and 3 self-report questionnaires measuring diabetes distress (PAID-5), psychological well-being (WHO-5) and depression (PHQ-9). Psychometric testing included construct validity (principal component analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient) and convergent/discriminant validity (Spearman's correlation coefficient). Decision tree analysis was performed to classify patients into homogeneous subgroups of self-efficacy based on their demographic and clinical characteristics. Participants were 110 males and 55 females, mean age of 65.2 years (SD ± 9), 56.9% had been diagnosed for 1-15 years, 63% had HbA1c level > 53 mmol/mol. Two main factors underlain the construct of self-efficacy in diabetes management: 'Disease Management' and "Lifestyles Management". Disease Management had a good reliability (α = .849) and Lifestyle Management had an excellent reliability (α = .902) indicating that the instrument is internally consistent. A negative and weak correlation was found between Lifestyle management, PAID-5 (r = - 0.258, p = < 0.01) and PHQ-9 (r = - 0.274, p = < 0.01) and a positive one with WHO-5 (r = 0.325, p < 0.01) supporting convergent validity. Disease management was uncorrelated with PAID-5 (r = - 0.142, p = 0.083), PHQ-9 (r = - 0.145, p = 0.076) and weekly correlated with WHO-5 (r = 0.170, p = 0.037) confirming discriminant validity. Higher levels of self-efficacy in lifestyle management were found in patients diagnosed for at least 1 year up to 15 years and aged > 65 years and the poorest self-efficacy was found in males < 65 years. Results support the validity and reliability of IT-DMSES. The scale can be used in research and clinical practice to monitor type 2 diabetes self-management over time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 19 12%
Lecturer 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 62 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 44 28%
Psychology 17 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 63 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,944,164
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#155
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,743
of 278,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 278,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them