Abstract
Introduction
Glucose monitoring-related problems affect the social and psychological distress experienced by patients with diabetes, and this distress leads to low compliance. Consequently, it is important to be able to comprehensively assess distress due to glucose monitoring in these patients. We have developed and validated a distress of self-glucose monitoring (DSGM) scale instrument to assess patient distress from glucose monitoring.
Methods
Following an extensive literature review and qualitative study, we selected 21 items for assessing the DSGM, including physical, psychosocial, and process domains. We conducted a cross-sectional study in patients with insulin-treated diabetes aged 10–40 years at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, from April 2021 to September 2021. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to confirm the structural validity of the DSGM scale. To confirm construct and criterion validity, we assumed that the Korean version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-K) instrument, life interference, and stress due to glucose monitoring might moderately correlate with the total score and scores of all domains of the DSGM scale except for the physical domain.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the DSGM scale were 0.92, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the three subscales ranged from 0.69 to 0.92, indicating satisfactory internal consistency. The DSGM scale was evaluated using CFA, and the fit indices for this model were good. The PAID-K total score, life interference, and stress due to glucose monitoring were moderately correlated with the total score of the DSGM scale and with the scores of the psychosocial and process domains, and were weakly correlated with the score of the physical domain of the DSGM scale.
Conclusion
The DSGM scale is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate distress due to glucose monitoring in adults, adolescents, and children with diabetes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out this study? |
Glucose monitoring-related problems affect the social and psychological distress of patients with diabetes, and this distress leads to low compliance; consequently, it is important to be able to comprehensively assess distress due to glucose monitoring. |
To measure social and psychological distress from glucose monitoring, we developed and validated the distress of self-glucose monitoring (DSGM) scale in patients aged > 10 years, including children, adolescents, and adults with diabetes. |
What was learned from this study? |
The DSGM tool has adequate validity and reliability as instrument for measuring the social and psychological distress of patients with diabetes, including children, adolescents, and adults. |
The DSGM tool is recommended to healthcare professionals as a means to communicate with patients over the monitoring and management of glucose levels in relation to their DSGM score. |
Introduction
Diabetes mellitus is a chronic condition that affects approximately 422 million people worldwide, which means that one out of 11 people worldwide have this condition [1,2,3]. When inadequately managed, it can lead to serious complications, including nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, and death [4, 5]. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a key aspect of diabetes self-management associated with improved glycemic control. SMBG consists of monitoring blood glucose levels at home using a small carrying machine called a “glucose meter.” Most glucose meters require a drop of blood from a pin-prick on the patient’s finger [6], and patients with diabetes who use insulin generally need to perform four to ten glucose monitoring sessions per day [7]. However, many patients experience difficulty in following the recommended method of monitoring blood glucose levels [8], and SMBG compliance rates as low as 44% and 24% for persons with type 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively, have been reported [9].
Low compliance can be associated with a high burden and stress due to the pain, stigma, time and equipment required to perform SMBG [10]. To resolve these difficulties associated with glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has recently evolved as an approach for both clinicians and patients [11]. Although CGM is associated with a relatively higher patient compliance than SMBG, the problems and complaints reported by patients using CGM have been higher than expected, primarily due to patients experiencing problems with skin irritation and difficulties in keeping the sensor and transmitter attached for successful CGM use [12]. In a study of 30 adolescents with type 1 diabetes, the mean CGM usage time decreased from 149 to 134 h per week from the first to third month after the study [9]. Since glucose monitoring-related problems affect the social and psychological distress experience by the patient and this distress leads to low compliance [13], it is important to comprehensively assess distress due to glucose monitoring.
Based on a literature review, we identified four instruments that have been used to measure distress due to glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes. However, these tools can not comprehensively cover distress due to glucose monitoring [14, 15] and can not be used in patients who did not use CGM [16, 17]. Furthermore, previous tools were developed only for adults. As children and adolescents are relatively more comprehensively affected by distress due to glucose monitoring [18], a tool available to children and adolescents is required. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate the distress of self-glucose monitoring (DSGM) scale as an instrument to comprehensively assess distress from glucose monitoring in patients aged > 10 years, including children, adolescents, and adults with diabetes.
Methods
Instrument Development
Prior to developing a questionnaire to assess the DSGM scale, an extensive literature review was performed by an expert group of two nurses, two pediatricians, three behavioral scientists, and one librarian. This expert group identified 14 studies involving distress measurement tools for use in patients with diabetes who performed SMBG and CGM to measure blood glucose levels. A total of 334 items were identified in the 14 studies, of which 32 were extracted for the present study. The extracted items were classified into general (5 items), physical (5 items), physical society (10 items), technique (3 items), process (8 items), and finance (1 item) domains. To increase content validity, the expert group reviewed the items and subsequently deleted the general and financial domains in the tool.
Following this qualitative study, 27 items were selected for assessing the DSGM scale, including the physical, psychosocial, and process domains. We then translated the English version into Korean. Respondents were instructed to indicate their responses on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = slightly, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = very much). We then created sentences for the questions and instructions. Since the DSGM should cover both children and adults, we attempted to make all sentences simple and easy to understand.
In this study, three of the 27 items (“how satisfied are you with the type of glucose monitoring?,” “how much do you think glucose monitoring interferes with your daily life?,” and “how stressful is glucose monitoring for you?”) covered overall distress instead of a single domain, and those submitted to content experts in the first round were discarded. The resulting set of 21 items in three domains (physical [n = 1], psychosocial [n = 7], process [n = 9]) was administered to the study participants.
Psychometric Validation
Study Participants
We conducted a cross-sectional study in patients with insulin-treated diabetes aged 10–40 years who visited the Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, from April 2021 to September 2021. Participants were eligible to participate in this study if they had a confirmed diagnosis of diabetes, had performed glucose monitoring for at least 3 months, and had no evidence of psychological problems at the time of the survey. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and informed consent was obtained from all study participants (IRB number:2020-12-156-009 SMC). This study was conducted by single center and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and its later amendments.
Measures
We used the 20 items of the draft DSGM. In addition to the DSGM scale, we assessed patients’ diabetes-related emotional distress using the Korean version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-K) instrument to evaluate concurrent and discriminant validities [19, 20]. The PAID-K scale is a 20-item representative self-reported instrument used to measure diabetes-related emotional distress and covers a range of negative emotional problems in patients with diabetes [21]. This instrument was originally developed in the USA for use in patients with diabetes. The validity and reliability of PAID-K have been well established in the Korean language [22].
We asked the participants about their sociodemographic characteristics, including highest educational level, marital status, monthly family income, and current working status. Clinical information, including years since diagnosis, type of diabetes, and type of glucose monitor, was obtained from the electronic medical records.
After conducting the survey, the research nurses asked the participants if there were any items in the DSGM that were difficult to respond to.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to report the characteristics of the participants and the mean and standard deviation (SD) of each item on the DSGM. Before the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), we performed Bartlett’s test for sphericity and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy. A significant statistical test in Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed that the correlation matrix was not an identity matrix (rejection of the null hypothesis). The KMO test was conducted to examine the strength of partial correlation between the variables; KMO values closer to 1.0 are considered ideal, whereas values < 0.5 are unacceptable. To evaluate the structural validity, which is part of the construct validity, we performed EFA to determine the underlying structure of the DSGM instrument [23]. A common factor model with alpha factor extraction was used. Alpha extraction generates factors by finding item groupings with maximum internal consistency, which makes this method an appropriate choice for instrument development [24].
After extracting the factor structure, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood with missing values to test whether our factor structure fitted the data. Several goodness-of-fit indices were used to evaluate the model fit, including the comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A CFI > 0.9 and RMSEA < 0.08 indicate a good fit to the data [25, 26]. Factor loadings in CFA were categorized as low (< 0.30), mid-range (0.30–0.59), and high (≥ 0.60) [27].
To test the internal consistency of the DSGM instrument, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha for both derivation and validation data. We expected a value > 0.70, which is the standard for defining acceptable reliability of an instrument.
Regarding hypothesis analysis to confirm construct and criterion validity, we assumed the DSGM domain and total scores to be at least moderately correlated with the PAID-K total score, life interference, and stress due to injection (0.30 ≤ r ≥ 0.70). On the other hand, we assumed that the physical domain would have a weak correlation with PAID-K total score, life interference, and stress due to injection.
The significance level was p < 0.05 (two-sided), and all statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 16 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) and R 4.1.2 ® Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Results
Study Participants
The mean age (SD) of the participants was 20.9 (± 6.7) years; 47.1% were male. In total, 89.7% had type 1 diabetes, and 60.3% used CGM for glucose monitoring. Patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes were typically diagnosed with diabetes at ages 9.6 (± 4.7) and 13.5 (± 2.1) years, respectively. The mean level of glycated hemoglobin for the last 3 months at the time of conducting this study was 7.08 ± 1.08%, and diabetes-related complications were observed in 42% of the participants (Table 1).
All participants responded to all items without exception and reported that there had been no item that was difficult to respond to. Even children aged < 10 years responded to all the item without missing any and reported that they understood the meaning of each item.
The highest distress item was “bothered to carry the materials for glucose monitoring” followed by “have skin-related problems due to glucose monitoring,” and “bothered to prepare for glucose monitoring” (Fig. 1). The CGM group was more likely to experience stress due to “feeling annoyed due to alarm from a glucose monitor” than the non-CGM group.
Structural Validity: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis
All 24 items satisfied Bartlett’s test for sphericity (p < 0.01) and the KMO test for sampling adequacy (p = 0.91). EFA indicated a three-factor solution with an eigen value > 1.0; thus, it was initially designed for a three-factor solution. In addition, three items (“concerned with cost of paying for glucose monitoring,” “I do not want to monitor glucose due to stress,” and “feeling annoyed due to the difference in glucose levels between the measured and the real one”) were excluded and did not load significantly on an interpretable factor solution. Subsequently, “feeling annoyed due to error from a glucose monitor” (r = 0.32) and “feeling annoyed due to alarm from a glucose monitor” (r = 0.36) were excluded based on relatively low factor loading values; however, we did not exclude these items based on the expert opinion that they were important items to measure process distress due to glucose monitoring (Table 2). Ultimately, 21 items were included in the DSGM instrument. In addition, the items “it is difficult to have physical and outdoor activities due to glucose monitoring,” “it is difficult to participate in all activities during the camp or trip due to glucose monitoring,” “it is difficult to do hobbies in free time due to glucose monitoring,” “feeling uncomfortable because people might stare at me,” “feeling bothered to prepare glucose monitoring,” and “feeling bothered to rotate the monitoring site” showed moderate correlations in the physical, psychosocial, and process domains. We assigned these items to a domain that had a relatively higher correlation than that of the other domains (Table 2).
Further examination of the factor structure of the 21-item DSGM scale was evaluated using CFA, which revealed high loadings (0.38–0.89) in general. In the overall group, the fit indices for this model were good: CFI = 0.938 and RMSEA = 0.060 (Fig. 2a). In the CGM group, the fit indices for this model were good: CFI = 0.927 and RMSEA = 0.068 (Fig. 2b). In the non-CGM group, the fit indices for this model were good: CFI = 0.776 and RMSEA = 0.122 (Fig. 2c).
Internal Consistency
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the total DSGM were 0.92, 0.92, and 0.93, in the overall, CGM, and non-CGM groups, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the three subscales ranged from 0.69 to 0.92, indicating satisfactory internal consistency (Table 2).
Construct Validity and Criterion Validity
Regarding correlations among DSGM, PAID-K, life interference, and stress due to glucose monitoring, the total DSGM was moderately correlated with the PAID-K total score (r = 0.59), life interference (r = 0.70), and stress (r = 0.65) due to glucose monitoring. In addition, the psychosocial domain and process in the DSGM also moderately correlated with the PAID-K total score, life interference due to glucose monitoring, and stress due to glucose monitoring. However, the physical domain of the DSGM was only weakly correlated with the PAID-K total score (Table 3).
Discussion
In this study, we found that the DSGM scale was a valid and reliable tool to evaluate distress due to glucose monitoring in adults, adolescents, and children with diabetes. The three factors that emerged in this analysis were reflected in three subdomains: physical, psychosocial, and process. The EFA and CFA confirmed the structural validity of the tool in patients with and without CGM. Furthermore, construct and criterion validity were demonstrated by its varying degrees of correlation with the PAID-K total score, life interference, and stress due to glucose monitoring. Taken together, our results provide strong evidence to support the validity and reliability of DSGM as an instrument to measure distress due to glucose monitoring in patients.
All participants completed all of the questions without missing any item. Considering that more than 50% of the study participants were aged < 18 years, we expect the DSGM scale to be a feasible means to evaluate the distress of glucose monitoring regardless of age and illiteracy rate when used in patients aged > 10 years. The EFA and CFA confirmed our hypothesis regarding the underlying structure of DSGM: physical, psychosocial, and process. The themes of the three domains were consistent with previously identified problems related to the distress of glucose monitoring among children and adolescents.
In this study, the highest distress among items was noted for the item “bothered to carry the materials for glucose monitoring” followed by “have skin-related problems due to glucose monitoring” and “bothered to prepare for glucose monitoring”. However, there are no tools that can measure this content. To date, previous tools related to the distress of blood glucose measurement have not been comprehensive because they were selective according to the blood glucose check method used or limited to individuals by type of diabetes. The DSGM scale is a tool that can comprehensively evaluate distress in patients who need to measure their blood glucose level, regardless of the type of diabetes or blood glucose check method [14,15,16,17, 28,29,30,31,32].
In general, the internal consistency of the DSGM scale was high. In contrast, the items “feeling annoyed due to error from a glucose monitor” and “feeling annoyed due to alarm from a glucose monitor” had relatively weaker correlations with the other items in addition to low factor loading values in the EFA. The low correlation in error and alarm items might be due to these issues being more likely to be machine issues, not patient process issues.
In the construct validity for the DSGM, the DSGM total score and the score of each subdomain moderately correlated with the PAID-K total score, life interference, and stress due to glucose monitoring. However, physical distress in the DSGM scale had a weak correlation or no correlation at all with the PAID-K total score, life interference, and stress due to glucose monitoring. Because the PAID-K instrument evaluates only emotional distress due to diabetes, it cannot address physical distress. However, because physical problems from glucose monitoring also occur frequently, the DSGM scale will be more useful in evaluating these problems [33].
This study has a number of limitations. First, the DSGM scale was developed using Korean patients with diabetes; therefore, additional validation studies are necessary in other patient populations. Nonetheless, previous studies have shown that patients with diabetes experience similar problems related to glucose monitoring [33]. Second, we did not perform a test–retest analysis. Our study design did not include an evaluation to confirm clinical stability and clinical outcomes such as glycemic control and adherence to glucose monitoring. Further study using a prospective cohort design with larger sample size should be necessary to evaluate the association between DSGM and clinical outcomes. Third, in an effort to minimize respondents’ distress, the convergent validity of the physical and process distress subscales of the DSGM was not examined using separate instruments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study confirmed that the DSGM tool is a valid and reliable scale for measuring distress of glucose monitoring, including the physical, psychosocial, and process aspects. It can be used to assess the DSGM in patients with diabetes, including children and adolescents aged > 10 years. The DSGM tool is recommended to healthcare professionals as a means to communicate with patients regarding the monitoring and managing of glucose levels in relation to their DSGM scale.
References
Diamond Project Group. Incidence and trends of childhood Type 1 diabetes worldwide 1990–1999. Diabet Med. 2006;23(8):857–66.
Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyurus E, Green A, Soltesz G, Eurodiab Study Group. Incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989–2003 and predicted new cases 2005–20: a multicentre prospective registration study. Lancet. 2009;373(9680):2027–33.
Nieto T, Castillo B, Nieto J, Redondo MJ. Demographic and diagnostic markers in new onset pediatric type 1 and type 2 diabetes: differences and overlaps. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2022;27(2):121.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group; Nathan DM, Genuth S, et al. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977–86.
Nathan DM, DCCT/EDIC Research Group. The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9–16.
Evans JM, Newton RW, Ruta DA, MacDonald TM, Stevenson RJ, Morris AD. Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycaemic control: observational study with diabetes database. BMJ. 1999;319(7202):83–6.
Chiang JL, Kirkman MS, Laffel LMB, Peters AL. Type 1 diabetes through the life span: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):2034–54.
DiMeglio LA, Acerini CL, Codner E, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(Suppl 27):105–14.
Patton SR. Adherence to glycemic monitoring in diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(3):668–75.
Boucher S, Blackwell M, Galland B, et al. Initial experiences of adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control after starting flash glucose monitoring—a qualitative study. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2020;19(1):37–46.
Engler R, Routh TL, Lucisano JY. Adoption barriers for continuous glucose monitoring and their potential reduction with a fully implanted system: results from patient preference surveys. Clin Diabetes. 2018;36(1):50–8.
Englert K, Ruedy K, Coffey J, et al. Skin and adhesive issues with continuous glucose monitors: a sticky situation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(4):745–51.
Lontchi-Yimagou E, Mapa-Tassou C, Dehayem MY, et al. The effect of free diabetes care on metabolic control and on health-related quality of life among youths with type 1 diabetes in Cameroon. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1): e000397.
Hood KK, Butler DA, Volkening LK, Anderson BJ, Laffel LM. The Blood Glucose Monitoring Communication questionnaire: an instrument to measure affect specific to blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(11):2610–5.
Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. Development of a new measure for assessing glucose monitoring device-related treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(9):657–63.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Validation of measures of satisfaction with and impact of continuous and conventional glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(9):679–84.
Peyrot M, Rubin RR. Patient-reported outcomes for an integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(1):57–62.
Di Battista AM, Hart TA, Greco L, Gloizer J. Type 1 diabetes among adolescents. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(3):465–75.
Yun YH, Bae SH, Kang IO, et al. Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Breast-Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Support Care Cancer. 2004;12(6):441–5.
Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1965.
Polonsky WH, Anderson BJ, Lohrer PA, et al. Assessment of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(6):754–60.
Eom YS, Park HS, Kim SH, et al. Evaluation of stress in korean patients with diabetes mellitus using the problem areas in diabetes-Korea questionnaire. Diabetes Metab J. 2011;35(2):182–7.
Ferketich S, Muller M. Factor analysis revisited. Nurs Res. 1990;39(1):59–62.
Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis. Classic edition. New York: Routledge; 2014.
Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Usefulness of 64-slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography for diagnosing acute coronary syndromes and predicting clinical outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain of uncertain origin. Circulation. 2007;115(13):1762–8.
Ximenez C. Recovery of weak factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis under conditions of model misspecification. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1038–52.
Kamaruzzaman S, Ploubidis GB, Fletcher A, Ebrahim S. A reliable measure of frailty for a community dwelling older population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:123.
Lee EH, Lee YW, Lee KW, Kim YS, Nam MS. Measurement of diabetes-related emotional distress using the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale: psychometric evaluations show that the short form is better than the full form. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:142.
Choi EJ. Factors related to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2007.
Hendrieckx C, Halliday JA, Beeney LJ, Speight J. Diabetes and emotional health: a practical guide for health professionals supporting adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. 3rd ed. Arlington: American Diabetes Association; 2021.
Schmitt A, Reimer A, Kulzer B, Haak T, Ehrmann D, Hermanns N. How to assess diabetes distress: comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). Diabet Med. 2016;33(6):835–43.
Polonsky WH, Hessler D. What are the quality of life-related benefits and losses associated with real-time continuous glucose monitoring? A survey of current users. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(4):295–301.
Kamrul-Hasan A, Paul AK, Amin MN, et al. Insulin injection practice and injection complications—results from the Bangladesh insulin injection technique survey. Eur Endocrinol. 2020;16(1):41–8.
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants of the study.
Funding
This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF). The study and Rapid Service Fee was funded by the Ministry of Education (2020R1I1A2074210).
Author Contributions
Eujin Choi: conceptualization, data collection, and writing—original draft preparation. Sooyeon Kim: data analysis. Juhee Cho: supervision, writing—reviewing, and editing. Min-Sun Kim: conceptualization and writing—original draft preparation. Eun Kyung Kwon: conceptualization and data collection. Youngha Kim: writing—reviewing and editing. Danbee Kang: conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, and writing—original draft preparation. Sung Yoon Cho: supervision, writing—reviewing, and editing. Eujin Choi and Sooyeon Kim equally contributed to this manuscript as co-first authors. Danbee Kang and Sung Yoon Cho equally contributed to this manuscript as co-corresponding authors.
Disclosures
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The study has received approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (IRB number:2020-12-156-009 SMC). This study was conducted by single center and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and its later amendments.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author (SY Cho) on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise research participant consent.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, E., Kim, S., Cho, J. et al. Development and Validation of a Distress Measurement Related to Glucose Monitoring of Diabetes Patients. Diabetes Ther 14, 737–748 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01383-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01383-8