Exploring feasible ways of person-reported outcome measurement in routine type 1 diabetes care: a protocol for the Diabeter-PROM study.

IF 3.5
Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare Pub Date : 2026-02-16 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fcdhc.2026.1729632
Per Winterdijk, Pim Dekker, Christine Fransman, Erwin Birnie, Henk-Jan Aanstoot, Giesje Nefs
{"title":"Exploring feasible ways of person-reported outcome measurement in routine type 1 diabetes care: a protocol for the Diabeter-PROM study.","authors":"Per Winterdijk, Pim Dekker, Christine Fransman, Erwin Birnie, Henk-Jan Aanstoot, Giesje Nefs","doi":"10.3389/fcdhc.2026.1729632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Psychosocial person-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) may assist monitoring, screening and support in routine care for people with type 1 diabetes (PWDs). However, recommended PROM sets are either too limited in covered domains, too time-consuming, or too general to fit type 1 diabetes (T1D) clinical practice. We propose an alternative approach to PROM assessment in routine daily T1D care (Diabeter-PROM study) that is maximally relevant and minimally burdensome for PWDs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We identify single index questions indicating the need for more in-depth assessment, thereby aligning total assessment length more closely with individual needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scientist-practitioners identified twelve key psychosocial domains based on literature review, clinical experience and discussion with PWDs: general quality of life, mood, anxiety, diabetes-specific worries, impact, disturbed eating behaviour, self-efficacy, self-esteem, social support/interaction, resiliency, stigma and satisfaction with care. These domains will be divided over three observational mixed-method sub-studies. Through purposive-sampled interviews and panels, HCPs and PWDs (> 10 per sub study) co-determine candidate index questions for each domain. These are then included in three separate cross sectional questionnaire batteries with existing PROMs. Each will be completed by ≥200 PWDs from our clinic. Per domain, the optimal index question and most informative in-depth item set are determined using statistics (test characteristics, item response) and clinical interpretation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We describe the exploration of an alternative way of PROM assessments, adapted to use in regular T1D care. After determining the most suitable index questions, we will apply this system in our daily diabetes practice, taking end-user needs into account and facilitating sustainable PROM implementation in routine care.</p>","PeriodicalId":73075,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare","volume":"7 ","pages":"1729632"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12950607/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcdhc.2026.1729632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Psychosocial person-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) may assist monitoring, screening and support in routine care for people with type 1 diabetes (PWDs). However, recommended PROM sets are either too limited in covered domains, too time-consuming, or too general to fit type 1 diabetes (T1D) clinical practice. We propose an alternative approach to PROM assessment in routine daily T1D care (Diabeter-PROM study) that is maximally relevant and minimally burdensome for PWDs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We identify single index questions indicating the need for more in-depth assessment, thereby aligning total assessment length more closely with individual needs.

Methods: Scientist-practitioners identified twelve key psychosocial domains based on literature review, clinical experience and discussion with PWDs: general quality of life, mood, anxiety, diabetes-specific worries, impact, disturbed eating behaviour, self-efficacy, self-esteem, social support/interaction, resiliency, stigma and satisfaction with care. These domains will be divided over three observational mixed-method sub-studies. Through purposive-sampled interviews and panels, HCPs and PWDs (> 10 per sub study) co-determine candidate index questions for each domain. These are then included in three separate cross sectional questionnaire batteries with existing PROMs. Each will be completed by ≥200 PWDs from our clinic. Per domain, the optimal index question and most informative in-depth item set are determined using statistics (test characteristics, item response) and clinical interpretation.

Discussion: We describe the exploration of an alternative way of PROM assessments, adapted to use in regular T1D care. After determining the most suitable index questions, we will apply this system in our daily diabetes practice, taking end-user needs into account and facilitating sustainable PROM implementation in routine care.

探索1型糖尿病常规护理中个人报告结果测量的可行方法:糖尿病-早膜损伤研究方案
背景:心理社会人报告结果测量(PROMs)可能有助于监测、筛查和支持1型糖尿病(PWDs)患者的常规护理。然而,推荐的PROM集合要么在覆盖的领域太有限,太耗时,要么太笼统,不适合1型糖尿病(T1D)的临床实践。我们提出了一种在常规T1D日常护理中进行PROM评估的替代方法(糖尿病-PROM研究),该方法对残疾人和医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)具有最大的相关性和最小的负担。我们确定单个指标问题,表明需要更深入的评估,从而使总评估长度更紧密地与个人需求保持一致。方法:科学家-从业人员根据文献综述、临床经验和与残疾人士的讨论确定了12个关键的社会心理领域:一般生活质量、情绪、焦虑、糖尿病特有的担忧、影响、进食行为紊乱、自我效能感、自尊、社会支持/互动、恢复力、耻辱和护理满意度。这些领域将分为三个观察性混合方法子研究。通过目的抽样访谈和小组,HCPs和pwd(每个子研究10个)共同确定每个领域的候选索引问题。然后将这些数据与现有的prom一起包含在三个单独的横截面问卷中。每个测试将由我们诊所的≥200名残疾人完成。每个领域,最优的索引问题和最具信息量的深度项目集是通过统计(测试特征,项目反应)和临床解释来确定的。讨论:我们描述了一种替代方法的PROM评估的探索,适用于常规T1D护理。在确定了最合适的指标问题后,我们将把该系统应用于我们的日常糖尿病实践,考虑到最终用户的需求,并促进PROM在日常护理中的可持续实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书