Cited by 53Diabetes Management and EducationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDiabetes Management and Research

Measurement of psychological adjustment to diabetes with the diabetes acceptance scale

Schmitt, Andreas, Reimer, André, Kulzer, Bernhard, Icks, Andrea, Paust, Rainer, Roelver, Klaus-Martin, Kaltheuner, Matthias, Ehrmann, Dominic +3 more·2018·Journal of Diabetes and its Complications

Abstract

Aims To develop a psychometric measure of diabetes acceptance.Methods An item pool was developed and pilot-tested using a sample of 220 people with diabetes; item selection resulted in the 20-item 'Diabetes Acceptance Scale (DAS)'. 606 people with diabetes were then cross-sectionally assessed with the DAS to evaluate its reliability, validity and clinical utility; concurrent measurements included diabetes-related coping (FQCI), diabetes distress (PAID-5), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), quality of life (EQ-5D), self-management (DSMQ), glycaemic control (HbA 1c) and complications.Results Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's α = 0.96). Factorial and criterion-related results supported validity. Higher diabetes acceptance scores correlated with more functional coping styles, lower distress and depression levels, higher treatment adherence, better glycaemic control and better quality of life (all P < .001). Persons with low diabetes acceptance (22% of the sample) were four times more likely to have HbA 1c values over 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), two times more likely to be diagnosed with long-term complications and each over two times more likely to have had episodes of severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis in the past year; the prevalence of major depression in this group was fivefold increased (all P < .05).Conclusions The DAS is a reliable and valid tool to measure diabetes acceptance. It may help identify patients with significant problems of accepting diabetes, a putative high-risk group in need of tailored care and support.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2018.01.005

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitt, A., Reimer, A., Kulzer, B., Icks, A., Paust, R., Roelver, K.-M., Kaltheuner, M., Ehrmann, D., Krichbaum, M., Haak, T., & Hermanns, N.
Affiliations
  • German Diabetes Center Mergentheim (DE)
  • Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. (DE)
  • Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Schmitt, Andreas
Venue
Journal of Diabetes and its Complications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
384-392
ISSN
  • 0891-6632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1056-8727
OpenAlex
W2782962659
Cited by
53
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes and its Complications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • German Center for Diabetes Research (82DZD01101, 375.10.15)
  • German Diabetes Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
psychometric validation, diabetes distress, coping styles, depression, glycemic control, HbA1c, diabetes complications, hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, quality of life, self-management
MeSH terms
Emotional Adjustment, Self-Management, Adult, Aged, Behavior, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Self Care, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review