Current Diabetes Reports

, 19:84 | Cite as

Can the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Improve the Delivery of Person-Centered Diabetes Care? A Review of Recent Developments and a Case Study

  • Soren E. SkovlundEmail author
  • TH Lichtenberg
  • D. Hessler
  • N. Ejskjaer
Psychosocial Aspects (SS Jaser, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Psychosocial Aspects


Purpose of Review

In recent years, the recommendation for and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine diabetes care has significantly increased. We review recent evidence and highlight key opportunities and challenges related to the active clinical use of PROMs to support person-centered diabetes care and focus areas for future research in the area.

Recent Findings

Recent pragmatic studies support that integration of multi-dimensional PROMs for diabetes in clinical care as part of a care improvement strategy can be acceptable for and valued by people with diabetes (PWD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) and may improve multiple aspects of quality of care, including screening, medical care monitoring and decision support, individualization of self-management support and goal-setting, and broader benefits related to active patient participation and person-centred diabetes care. We identify multiple intervention, individual, and care setting characteristics, which influence acceptability, feasibility, implementation, and effectiveness of PROMs in routine care. Recent clinical PROM studies highlight the value of mixed methods research and systematic involvement of PWD, clinicians, and other stakeholders in the design and implementation of questionnaires for patient input in routine diabetes care.


We identified a new significant trend towards participatory development of multi-dimensional PROMs with the aim of IT-enabled integration into routine diabetes care to facilitate multiple components of person-centered diabetes care and better clinical, quality of life, and cost outcomes. While results from large-scale randomized controlled studies are still limited, a growing number of pragmatic implementation studies support that user-centric PROM interventions have the potential to facilitate significant improvements in care for PWD.


Patient-reported outcomes Person-centered diabetes care Health-related quality of life Psychosocial diabetes care Collaborative diabetes care Value-based healthcare 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any intervention studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Qualitative research involving people with diabetes and caregivers was undertaken by Soren E. Skovlund for this study. All participants in this research gave informed written consent and study protocol was conducted according to local and national scientific regulations.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    • Svedbo Engström M, Leksell J, Johansson UB, Eeg-Olofsson K, Borg S, Palaszewski B, et al. A disease-specific questionnaire for measuring patient-reported outcomes and experiences in the Swedish National Diabetes Register: development and evaluation of content validity, face validity, and test-retest reliability. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101:139–46. Comprehensive methodological development of a new multi-dimensional PRO diabetes questionnaire intended for use to measure diabetes-related quality of life in routine care.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Dickinson WP, Dickinson LM, Jortberg BT, Hessler DM, Fernald DH, Fisher L. A protocol for a cluster randomized trial comparing strategies for translating self-management support into primary care practices. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:1–10. Comprehensive methodology for large-scale multi-arm implementation study on PROMs in routine care for people with type 2 diabetes in diverse primary care settings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bootle S, Skovlund SE. Proceedings of the 5th International DAWN Summit 2014: acting together to make person-centred diabetes care a reality. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2015;109:6–18. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, Kernan WN, Mathieu C, Mingrone G, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia. 2018;61:2461–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ivey SL, Shortell SM, Rodriguez HP, Wang Y. Patient engagement in ACO practices and patient-reported outcomes among adults with co-occurring chronic disease and mental health conditions. Med Care. 2018;56:551–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griggs CL, Schneider JC, Kazis LE, Ryan CM. Patient-reported outcome measures. Med Care. 2017;56:265:1066–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Young-Hyman D, De Groot M, Hill-Briggs F, Gonzalez JS, Hood K, Peyrot M. Psychosocial care for people with diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2016:39, 2126–2140. Describes the ADA guideline recommendations for psychosocial care in diabetes, including consideration of use of psychological screening questionnaires in diabetes care.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Diabetes Federation - Home. Global guidelines for type 2 diabetes. 2012 [cited 2019 Jan 23]. Available from:
  10. 10.
    International Diabetes Federation. Recommendations for managing Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care. Accesed 4 Jun 2019.
  11. 11.
    Delamater AM, de Wit M, McDarby V, Malik JA, Hilliard ME, Northam E, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: psychological care of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19:237–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenhalgh J, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Pawson R, Meads D, Black N, et al. Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Heal Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5:1–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reddy J, Wilhelm K, Campbell L. Putting PAID to diabetes-related distress: the potential utility of the problem areas in diabetes (PAID) scale in patients with diabetes. Psychosomatics. Elsevier Inc. 2013;54:44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Marrero DG, Hilliard ME, Maahs DM, AH MA-F, Hunter CM. Using patient reported outcomes in diabetes research and practice: recommendations from a national workshop. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;153:23–9 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Provides a report from a recent multi-stakeholder expert meeting on future research priorities for advancement of use of PRO in diabetes research and care. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glasgow R, Emmons KM. The public health need for patient-reported measures and health behaviors in electronic health records: a policy statement of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. Transl Behav Med. 2011;1:108–9. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaplan SH, Billimek J, Sorkin DH, Ngo-Metzger Q, Greenfield S. Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes: the coached care (R2D2C2) project. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:1340–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes - A systematic Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes - A systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santana MJ, Feeny D. Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • International Consortium for Health Outcomes Research (ICHOM) ICHOM standard set for adults with diabetes. Type 1 and type 2 in adults. Data collection and reference guide 2018: International Consortium for Health Outcomes Management - Home; 2019. [cited 2019 Jan 23]. Available from: Accessed 11 Jul 2019. Defines PROM measures as part of global diabetes standard outcomes set for outcomes monitoring (WHO-5, PAID, and PHQ-9).
  20. 20.
    • d’Emden H, McDermott B, Poulson K, McGahan G. Protocol for psychosocial screening of adolescents and young adults with chronic illness. Intern Med J. 2018. Provides a detailed concrete case example of development of a brief psychosocial screening tool designed for routine use with young adults with type 1 diabetes.
  21. 21.
    Krist AH, Glenn BA, Glasgow RE, Balasubramanian BA, Chambers DA, Fernandez ME, et al. Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project. Implement Sci. 2013;8:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grimaldi A, Penfornis A, Consoli S, Falissard B, Eymard E, Williams P, et al. Breaking barriers to effective type 2 diabetes management: findings from the use of the OPTIMA©Questionnaire in clinical practice. Adv Ther. 2016;33:1033–48. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Powell P, Corathers S, Raymond J, Streisand R. New approaches to providing individualized diabetes care in the 21st century. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2015;11:222–30 Available from:
  24. 24.
    Bingham CO, Noonan VK, Auger C, Feldman DE, Ahmed S, Bartlett SJ. Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series—paper 4: patient-reported outcomes can inform clinical decision making in chronic care. J Clin Epidemiol Elsevier Inc. 2017;89:136–41. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shortell SM, Poon BY, Ramsay PP, Rodriguez HP, Ivey SL, Huber T, et al. A multilevel analysis of patient engagement and patient-reported outcomes in primary care practices of accountable care organizations. J Gen Intern Med. 2017; [cited 2019 Mar 25];32:640–7. Available from: Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parchman ML, Zeber JE, Palmer RF. Activation, medication adherence, and intermediate clinical outcomes in type 2. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8:410–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2265–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Ishaque S, Karnon J, Chen G, Nair R, Salter AB. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Qual Life Res. 2019;28:567–92 Springer International Publishing [cited 2019 Mar 25]. Available from: a first systematic review of the effectiveness of PROM interventions across disease areas on facilitating care with focus on patient value and preferences. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang TS, Yusuf FLA, Polonsky WH, Fisher L. Assessing quality of life in diabetes: II—deconstructing measures into a simple framework. Diabetes Res Clin Pract Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2017;126:286–302. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Speight J, Reaney MD, Barnard KD. Not all roads lead to Rome—a review of quality of life measurement in adults with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2009;26:315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Svedbo Engstrom M, Leksell J, Johansson U-B, Gudbjornsdottir S. What is important for you? A qualitative interview study of living with diabetes and experiences of diabetes care to establish a basis for a tailored patient-reported outcome measure for the Swedish National Diabetes Register. BMJ Open. England. 2016;6:e010249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eton D, Elraiyah TA, Yost K, Ridgeway J, Johnson A, Egginton J, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported measures of burden of treatment in three chronic diseases. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2013; Dove Press [cited 2019 Mar 20];4:7. Available from:
  33. 33.
    Skovlund SE, Troelsen L, Dømgaard M, Jakobsen PEO, Ejskjaer N. Development of a national minimal set of patient-important outcome domains for value-based diabetes care in Denmark. Diabetes. 2018, 67 American Diabetes Association Available from:
  34. 34.
    Murphy M, Hollinghurst S, Salisbury C. Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Glasgow RE, Dickinson P, Fisher L, Christiansen S, Toobert DJ, Bender BG, et al. Use of RE-AIM to develop a multi-media facilitation tool for the patient-centered medical home. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGuire BE, Morrison TG, Hermanns N, Skovlund S, Eldrup E, Gagliardino J, et al. Short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID)-5 and PAID-1. Diabetologia. 2010;53:66–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fisher L, Hessler DM, Polonsky WH, Mullan J. When is diabetes distress clinically meaningful? Diabetes Care. 2012;35:259–64 American Diabetes Association. Available from: Scholar
  38. 38.
    • Scholle SH, Morton S, Homco J, Rodriguez K, Anderson D, Hahn E, et al. Implementation of the PROMIS-29 in routine care for people with diabetes. 2018;41:274–87. Provides qualitative evaluation of barriers, facilitators, and impacts of use of a generic PROM for PWD in primary practice. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:1305–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Estabrooks PA, Boyle M, Emmons KM, Glasgow RE, Hesse BW, Kaplan RM, et al. Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Speight J, Conn J, Dunning T, Skinner TC. Diabetes Australia position statement. A new language for diabetes: improving communications with and about people with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2012;97:425–31. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peyrot M, Burns KK, Davies M, Forbes A, Hermanns N, Holt R, et al. Diabetes Attitudes Wishes and Needs 2 (DAWN2): a multinational, multi-stakeholder study of psychosocial issues in diabetes and person-centred diabetes care. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;99:174–84 Available from: Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perrin NE, Davies MJ, Robertson N, Snoek FJ, Khunti K. The prevalence of diabetes-specific emotional distress in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2017;34:1508–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nanayakkara N, Pease A, Ranasinha S, Wischer N, Andrikopoulos S, Speight J, et al. Depression and diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes: results from the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA) 2016. Sci Rep. 2018;8:7846 [cited 2019 Mar 23] Available from:
  45. 45.
    • Nicolucci A, Kovacs Burns K, Holt RIG, Comaschi M, Hermanns N, Ishii H, et al. Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking of diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for people with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30:767–77 Available from: Presents multi-national data on an international set of pragmatic PROM indicators for person-centered diabetes care. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jones A, Vallis M, Pouwer F. If it does not significantly change HbA1c levels why should we waste time on it? A plea for the prioritization of psychological well-being in people with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2015;32:155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Snoek FJ. Monitoring of individual needs in diabetes (MIND)-2: follow-up data from the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) MIND study. 2012;35:2128–32.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hajos TRS, Pouwer F, Skovlund SE, Den Oudsten BL, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn PHLM, Tack CJ, et al. Psychometric and screening properties of the WHO-5 well-being index in adult outpatients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2013;30:63–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bajracharya P, Summers L, Amatya AK, DeBlieck C. Implementation of a depression screening protocol and tools to improve screening for depression in patients with diabetes in the primary care setting. J Nurse Pract. Elsevier, Inc. 2016;12:690–6. Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Adèr HJ, Heine RJ. Monitoring of psychological well-being in outpatients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1929–35 American Diabetes Association Available from: Scholar
  51. 51.
    De Wit M, de Waal HA, Bokma JA, Haasnoot K, Houdijk MC, Gemke RJ, et al. Follow-up results on monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescent diabetes care: benefits do not sustain in routine practice. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11:175–81 Available from: Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chawla A, Saha C, Marrero DG. A novel application of the problem areas in diabetes (PAID) instrument to improve glycemic control and patient satisfaction. Diabetes Educ. 2010;36:337–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hay JW, Katon WJ, Ell K, Lee PJ, Guterman JJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of collaborative care management of major depression among low-income, predominantly Hispanics with diabetes. Value Health. Elsevier Inc. 2012;15:249–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Holt RIG, Kokoszka A, Kovacs Burns K, Pouwer F, Wens J, Stuckey H, et al. Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking of diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for people with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30:767–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gonzalez JS, Fisher L, Polonsky WH. Depression in diabetes: have we been missing something important? Diabetes Care. 2011;34:236–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pouwer F, Tack CJ, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn PHLM, Bazelmans E, Beekman AT, Heine RJ, et al. Limited effect of screening for depression with written feedback in outpatients with diabetes mellitus: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2011;54:741–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Phillips SM, Glasgow RE, Bello G, Ory MG, Glenn BA, Sheinfeld-Gorin SN, et al. Frequency and prioritization of patient health risks from a structured health risk assessment. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Krist AH, Phillips SM, Sabo RT, Balasubramanian BA, Heurtin-Roberts S, Ory MG, et al. Adoption, reach, implementation, and maintenance of a behavioral and mental health assessment in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:525–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    • Santana MJ, Haverman L, Absolom K, Takeuchi E, Feeny D, Grootenhuis M, et al. Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1707–18. Provides a framework for the evaluation of potential impacts of implementation of PROMs in chronic healthcare.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Roberts NJ, Kidd L, Dougall N, Patel IS, McNarry S, Nixon C. Measuring patient activation: the utility of the patient activation measure within a UK context—results from four exemplar studies and potential future applications. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:1739–46 Available from: Scholar
  61. 61.
    •• Corathers SD, Mara CA, Chundi PK, Kichler JC. Psychosocial patient-reported outcomes in pediatric and adolescent diabetes: a review and case example. Curr Diab Rep Current Diabetes Rep. 2017;17. Provides insights into a concrete model for multi-dimensional PRO assessment in routine pediatric diabetes care and utilization of PRO data also at group level. Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rogers E, Yost K, Rosedahl J, Linzer M, Boehm D, Thakur A, et al. Validating the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a patient-reported measure of treatment burden, in people with diabetes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2017;8:143–56 Available from: Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dickinson WP, Dickinson LM, Jortberg BT, Hessler DM, Fernald DH, Cuffney M, et al. A cluster randomized trial comparing strategies for translating self-management support into primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med. 2019;32:341–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schougaard LMV, Larsen LP, Jessen A, Sidenius P, Dorflinger L, de Thurah A, et al. AmbuFlex: tele-patient-reported outcomes (telePRO) as the basis for follow-up in chronic and malignant diseases. Qual Life Res. Springer International Publishing. 2016;25:525–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rodriguez HP, Glenn BA, Olmos TT, Krist AH, Shimada SL, Kessler R, et al. Real-world implementation and outcomes of health behavior and mental health assessment. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27:356–66 Available from: Scholar
  67. 67.
    •• Forsberg HH, Nelson EC, Reid R, Grossman D, Mastanduno MP, Weiss LT, et al. Using patient-reported outcomes in routine practice. J Ambul Care Manage. 2015;38:188–95. Detailed listing of best practice recommendations for implementation of PRO in general in clinical practice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Frost MH, Bonomi AA, Cappelleri JC, Schünemann H, Moynihan TJ, et al. Applying quality-of-life data formally and systematically into clinical practice. 2003;25:D10.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Deane K, Delbecque L,Gorbenko O,HamoirAM, Hoos A, Nafria B, et al. Co-creation of patient engagement quality guidance for medicines development: an international multistakeholder initia-1073 tive. BMJ Innov. 2019;bmjinnov-2018–000317. Available from:
  70. 70.
    Eilander M, de Wit M, Rotteveel J, Maas-van Schaaijk N, Roeleveld-Versteegh A, Snoek F. Implementation of quality of life monitoring in Dutch routine care of adolescents with type 1 diabetes: appreciated but difficult. Pediatr Diabetes. 2016 Mar;17(2):112-9. Scholar
  71. 71.
    Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R. The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:833–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Aycock DM, Hayat MJ, Helvig A, Dunbar SB, Clark PC. Essential considerations in developing attention control groups in behavioral research. Res Nurs Health. 2018;41:320–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rodriguez HP, Glenn BA, Olmos TT, Krist AH, Shimada SL, Kessler R, et al. Real-world implementation and outcomes of health behavior and mental health assessment. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27:356–66 [cited 2019 Mar 25] Available from: Scholar
  74. 74.
    Penfornis A, Consoli S, Grimaldi A, Williams P, Falissard B, Eymard E, et al. Breaking barriers to effective type 2 diabetes management: findings from the use of the OPTIMA© questionnaire in clinical practice. Adv Ther. 2016;33:1033–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bardach D, Kendrick D, Anderson D, Hart E, Rodriguez K, Hahn E, et al. Implementation of the PROMIS-29 in routine care for people with diabetes. J Ambul Care Manage. 2018;41:274–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res Springer International Publishing. 2018;27:1147–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1717–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and Diabetes Health Profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in nine countries. 1998;51:1171–8.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL Group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299–310. Scholar
  81. 81.
    Spitzer RL, Kronenke K, Williams J. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Health Questionnaire. Jama. 1999;282:1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Lowe B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics. 2009;50:613–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Roth AJ. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. 1998;82:1198–904.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Holmes-Truscott E, Skovlund SE, Hendrieckx C, Pouwer F, Peyrot M, Speight J. Assessing the perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: psychometric validation of the DAWN2 Impact of Diabetes Profile in the second Diabetes MILES Australia (MILES-2) survey. Diabetes Res Clin Pract Elsevier. 2019;150:253–63. Scholar
  85. 85.
    Brod M, Skovlund SE, Wittrup-Jensen KU. Measuring the impact of diabetes through patient report of treatment satisfaction, productivity and symptom experience. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:481–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lin C-Y, Lee T-Y, Sun Z-J, Yang Y-C, Wu J-S, Ou H-T. Development of diabetes-specific quality of life module to be in conjunction with the World Health Organization quality of life scale brief version (WHOQOL-BREF). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:167 [cited 2019 Mar 29] Available from:
  87. 87.
    Ware JE, Gandek B, Guyer R, Deng N. Standardizing disease-specific quality of life measures across multiple chronic conditions: development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nicolucci A, Rossi MC, Pellegrini F, Lucisano G, Pintaudi B, Gentile S, et al. Benchmarking network for clinical and humanistic outcomes in diabetes (BENCH-D) study: protocol, tools, and population. Springerplus. 2014;3:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Saisho Y. Use of diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire in diabetes care: importance of patient-reported outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:11–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Brod M, Højbjerre L, Bushnell DM, Hansen CT. Assessing the impact of non-severe hypoglycemic events and treatment in adults: development of the Treatment-Related Impact Measure—Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO). Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2971–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Grabman J, Vajda Bailey K, Schmidt K, Cariou B, Vaur L, Madani S, et al. An empirically derived short form of the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II. Diabet Med. 2017;34:500–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Celik S, Yenidunya G, Temel E, Purisa S, Uzum AK, Gul N, et al. Utility of DN4 questionnaire in assessment of neuropathic pain and its clinical correlations in Turkish patients with diabetes mellitus. Prim Care Diabetes. 2016;10:259–64 Available from: Scholar
  93. 93.
    Revicki DA, Camilleri M, Kuo B, Szarka LA, McCormack J, Parkman HP. Evaluating symptom outcomes in gastroparesis clinical trials: validity and responsiveness of the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index-Daily Diary (GCSI-DD). Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:456–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Toobert DJ, Hampson SE, Glasgow RE. The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:943–50 American Diabetes Association Available from: Scholar
  95. 95.
    Schmitt A, Reimer A, Hermanns N, Huber J, Ehrmann D, Schall S, et al. Assessing diabetes self-management with the diabetes self-management questionnaire (DSMQ) can help analyse behavioural problems related to reduced glycaemic control. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–12.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Laursen DH, Christensen KB, Christensen U, Frølich A. Assessment of short and long-term outcomes of diabetes patient education using the health education impact questionnaire (HeiQ). BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:213 [cited 2019 Mar 29] Available from:
  97. 97.
    Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, King DK. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:2655–61 [cited 2019 Mar 25] Available from: Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ylitalo KR, Meyer MRU, Lanning BA, During C, Laschober R, Griggs JO. Simple screening tools to identify limited health literacy in a low-income patient population. Med (United States). 2018;97.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC). PRAPARE Implementation and Action Toolkit. 2016 [cited 2019 Mar 1]. Available from: Accessed 6 Jun 2019.
  100. 100.
    Billioux A, Verlander K, Anthony S, Alley D. Standardized screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings: the accountable health communities screening tool. NAM Perspect. 2017;7(5).
  101. 101.
    Hessler DM, Fisher L, Polonsky WH, Bowyer V, Potter M. Motivation and attitudes toward changing health (MATCH): a new patient-reported measure to inform clinical conversations. J Diabetes Complicat. Elsevier Inc. 2018;32:665–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Høi-Hansen T, Pedersen-Bjergaard U, Thorsteinsson B. Classification of hypoglycemia awareness in people with type 1 diabetes in clinical practice. J Diabetes Complicat. 2010;24:392–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Speight J, Barendse SM, Singh H, Little SA, Inkster B, Frier BM, et al. Characterizing problematic hypoglycaemia: iterative design and preliminary psychometric validation of the Hypoglycaemia Awareness Questionnaire (HypoA-Q). 2016;33:376–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soren E. Skovlund
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • TH Lichtenberg
    • 3
  • D. Hessler
    • 4
  • N. Ejskjaer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Steno Diabetes Center North DenmarkAalborg University HospitalAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  3. 3.Danish Health Data AuthorityCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Family & Community Medicine, School of MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations