Cited by 474Diabetes Management and EducationCancer survivorship and careHealth Education and Validation

Development of a brief diabetes distress screening instrument

Open access
Fisher, L., Glasgow, R. E., Mullan, J. T., Skaff, M. M., Polonsky, W. H.·2008·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous research has documented that diabetes distress, defined as patient concerns about disease management, support, emotional burden, and access to care, is an important condition distinct from depression. We wanted to develop a brief diabetes distress screen instrument for use in clinical settings. METHODS: We assessed 496 community-based patients with type 2 diabetes on the previously validated, 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17) and 6 biobehavioral measures: glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)); non-high-density-lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol; kilocalories, percentage of calories from fat, and number of fruit and vegetable servings consumed per day; and physical activity as measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. RESULTS: An average item score of > or =3 (moderate distress) discriminated high- from low-distressed subgroups. The 4 DDS17 items with the highest correlations with the DDS17 total (r = .56-.61) were selected. Composites, comprised of 2, 3, and 4 of these items (DDS2, DDS3, DDS4), yielded higher correlations (r=.69-.71). The sensitivity and specificity of the composites were .95 and .85, .93 and .87, and .97 and .86, respectively. The DDS3 had a lower sensitivity and higher percentages of false-negative and false-positive results. All 3 composites significantly discriminated subgroups on HbA(1c), non-HDL cholesterol, and kilocalories consumed per day; none discriminated subgroups on fruit and vegetable servings consumed per day; and only the DDS3 yielded significant results on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Because of its psychometric properties and brevity, the DDS2 was selected as a screening instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The DDS2 is a 2-item diabetes distress screening instrument asking respondents to rate on a 6-point scale the degree to which the following items caused distress: (1) feeling overwhelmed by the demands of living with diabetes, and (2) feeling that I am often failing with my diabetes regimen. The DDS17 can be administered to those who have positive findings on the DDS2 to define the content of distress and to direct intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.842

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The DDS2 was considered a reliable screening composite for use in clinical practice.

    “Previous analyses identified that the DDS2 had good sensitivity and specificity with the DDS17 (7) and was considered a reliable screening composite for use in clinical practice.”

    From When Is Diabetes Distress Clinically Meaningful? (2012) · cites this paper as [7]

  • The DDS2 had good sensitivity and specificity with the DDS17.

    “Previous analyses identified that the DDS2 had good sensitivity and specificity with the DDS17 (7) and was considered a reliable screening composite for use in clinical practice.”

    From When Is Diabetes Distress Clinically Meaningful? (2012) · cites this paper as [7]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Anderson RJ, Lustman PJ, Clouse RE, De Groot M, Freedland KE. Prevalence of depression in adults with diabetes: A systematic review. [Abstract]. Diabetes. 2000;49(Suppl 1):A64.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisher, L., Glasgow, R. E., Mullan, J. T., Skaff, M. M., & Polonsky, W. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2008-05-01
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
246-252
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W1861477559
Cited by
474
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK-061937, DK062732, R01DK061937, R01DK062732)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
diabetes distress, screening tool, type 2 diabetes, Diabetes Distress Scale, brief screening, psychometric properties, HbA1c, non-HDL cholesterol, physical activity, diet, emotional burden, disease management
MeSH terms
Aged, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Lipoproteins, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Self Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress, Psychological, Comorbidity, Sickness Impact Profile

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