metricas
covid
Buscar en
Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición (English ed.)
Toda la web
Inicio Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición (English ed.) Validation and application of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Cuban pat...
Información de la revista
Vol. 69. Núm. 10.
Páginas 791-801 (diciembre 2022)
Visitas
910
Vol. 69. Núm. 10.
Páginas 791-801 (diciembre 2022)
Original article
Acceso a texto completo
Validation and application of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Cuban patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Validación y aplicación de la escala de percepción del tratamiento con insulina en pacientes cubanos con diabetes mellitus tipo 2
Visitas
910
Frank Hernández-Garcíaa,
Autor para correspondencia
, Víctor Ernesto González-Velázquezb, Enrique Rolando Pérez Garcíac, Luis Alberto Lazo Herrerad, Elys María Pedraza-Rodrígueze, Antonio Pupo Pérezf, Patricia González Quintanag, Jany Casanovas Figueroaa
a Centro Provincial de Atención y Educación al Paciente Diabético, Hospital Provincial General Docente Dr. Antonio Luaces Iraola, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Dr. José Assef Yara, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Ciego de Ávila, Ciego de Ávila, Cuba
b Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Villa Clara, Santa Clara, Villa Clara, Cuba
c Policlínico Universitario Área Norte, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Dr. José Assef Yara, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Ciego de Ávila, Ciego de Ávila, Cuba
d Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Dr. Ernesto Che Guevara de la Serna, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Pinar del Río, Pinar del Río, Cuba
e Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Villa Clara, Santa Clara, Villa Clara, Cuba
f Facultad de Ciencias Médicas General Calixto García, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana, La Habana, Cuba
g Facultad de Medicina No. 1, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Santiago de Cuba, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Abstract
Introduction

The purpose of this study was to validate the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS) in the Cuban population with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Material and methods

A cross-sectional, multicentre analytical study was performed in Cuba from February 2020 to April 2021; 199 patients were surveyed in a hospital institution and in primary healthcare. We used the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale, consisting of 20 items, with a minimum score of 20 points and a maximum of 100, where the higher the score, the worse the perception of insulin therapy. The validity of the instrument was determined by means of an exploratory factor analysis. The internal consistency and reliability of the scale were calculated by means of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. A K-means cluster analysis was performed to establish a cut-off point for poor perception of insulin therapy.

Results

The exploratory factor analysis supported the validity of the instrument, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.747. There were statistically significant differences between patients under insulin and non-insulin treatment in terms of the answers given in all items of the scale. The total mean score obtained was 51.96 ± 10.78, and it was lower in insulin users compared to those who used other drugs (49.79 ± 10.07 vs 55.09 ± 11.12). A score ≥65 was proposed as a cut-off point for poor perception of insulin therapy. A positive relationship was found between the body mass index values and the total score of the scale. Being female and current treatment not involving insulin were factors associated with low perception of insulin therapy.

Conclusions

The instrument proved to be valid for the population in which it was applied. Insulin users turned out to be the ones with the best perception about its use. A cut-off point of ≥65 points for poor perception of insulin treatment was proposed for evaluation and comparison in future studies in other patient populations.

Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Insulin
Psychometric analysis
Psychological insulin resistance
Resumen
Introducción

El propósito de este estudio fue validar la escala de percepción del tratamiento con insulina en población cubana con diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

Material y métodos

Se realizó un estudio analítico transversal, multicéntrico, en Cuba, entre febrero de 2020 y abril de 2021. Se encuestaron 199 pacientes en una institución hospitalaria y en atención primaria de salud. A los participantes se les aplicó la Escala de Percepción del Tratamiento con Insulina, conformada por 20 ítems, con una calificación mínima de 20 puntos y máxima de 100, donde a mayor puntaje peor percepción de la terapia con insulina. Se determinó la validez del instrumento mediante un análisis factorial exploratorio. La consistencia interna y fiabilidad de la escala fue calculada con el coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach. Se realizó un análisis de conglomerados de K-medias para establecer un punto de corte de mala percepción de la terapia con insulina.

Resultados

El análisis factorial apoyó la validez del instrumento, con un alfa de Cronbach de 0,747. Existieron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los pacientes bajo tratamiento insulínico y no insulínico en cuanto a las respuestas otorgadas en todos los ítems de la escala. La media total de puntuación obtenida fue de 51,96 ± 10,78, y resultó menor en los usuarios de insulina comparado con los que usaban otros fármacos (49,79 ± 10,07 vs. 55,09 ± 11,12). Se determinó la puntuación ≥65 como punto de corte para mala percepción de la terapia con insulina. Se encontró una relación positiva entre los valores de índice de masa corporal y la puntuación total de la escala. El sexo femenino y el tratamiento actual no insulínico fueron factores asociados a la baja percepción del tratamiento con insulina.

Conclusiones

El instrumento demostró ser válido para la población donde fue aplicado. Los usuarios de insulina resultaron ser los que mejor percepción tenían sobre el uso de la misma. Se propuso el punto de corte ≥65 puntos para mala percepción del tratamiento con insulina para su valoración y comparación en futuros estudios en otras poblaciones de pacientes.

Palabras clave:
Diabetes mellitus
Diabetes mellitus tipo 2
Insulina
Análisis psicométrico
Resistencia psicológica a la insulina
Texto completo
Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major public health problem with a high prevalence and financial burden. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is the most common, accounting for approximately 90% of all cases, and it is associated with modifiable risk factors such as obesity and overweight, physical inactivity and high-calorie but low nutritional-value diets. Approximately 463 million people between the ages of 20 and 79 had DM in 2019, yielding a worldwide prevalence of 9.3%.1 In Central and South America, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) region that includes Cuba, there are 54.8 million people with DM (prevalence of 12.8%) and the number of deaths from this cause is estimated at 243,200.1

In Cuba, it is estimated that approximately 1,134,000 people between the ages of 20 and 79 live with DM, of whom 445,000 have not been diagnosed,1 making a prevalence of 66.7 patients per 1,000 population.2

Diabetic Care Centres were created in Cuba in 1972, and the National Diabetes Mellitus Programme was implemented in 1975 when comprehensive care consultations for patients with diabetes were created in primary healthcare.3 Nevertheless, using different measurement indicators, deficiencies have been identified in the quality of care received by these patients here in Cuba.4

The low level of knowledge of the use of insulins among primary care professionals and its direct relationship with blood glucose control in patients with diabetes has been reported previously.5–8 Considering that treatment with insulin is necessary in 20% of patients with DM2,5 the healthcare professionals involved in the integrated care of these patients should be trained in this regard and be conversant with insulin therapy regimens and how they are perceived by the users. However, these aspects are not always accomplished, and neither are all the tools required to achieve them available, and multiple barriers and negative attitudes towards insulin therapy are reported both by patients with DM2 and the healthcare professionals involved in their care.9,10 This, in turn, affects therapy adherence, which has been reported as low by several authors.11,12

The Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS)13 was published in 2007. This scale enables us to identify the positive and negative perceptions of insulin in patients with DM2 and act accordingly. With a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 (0.90 for the negative subscale and 0.68 for the positive subscale) for its 20 items, the ITAS has been used and adapted by other authors in different settings.14–16

Therapeutic education including all the basic aspects the patient needs to know about DM should be provided in the early days after diagnosis of the disease. This education should be afforded continuity over time, with new elements provided at each consultation, including information about insulin therapy.

To date, there is no validated instrument available in Cuba for assessing patient perception of the use of insulin in the control of DM. As far as we were able to determine, the ITAS has not been validated for use in the DM2 patient population in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Most patients with diabetes in Cuba do not have access to “first-world” insulin delivery devices, which are relatively convenient and improve treatment adherence considerably. This all means that it is important to ascertain DM2 patients’ perception of insulin therapy, how it affects their lifestyle and what thoughts of fear or rejection it may produce in them with regard to insulin injections. As a large proportion of people living with diabetes will require insulin treatment at some point in their lives, this research was carried out with a view to validating the ITAS in the Cuban DM2 population.

Material and methodsType of study, place and period

A cross-sectional, multicentre, analytical study was carried out in five provinces in Cuba (Pinar del Río, Havana, Villa Clara, Ciego de Ávila and Santiago de Cuba), representing the country's three geographical regions. The study was carried out between February 2020 and April 2021, although it was interrupted between April and September 2020 due to the emergency situation caused by COVID-19.

Population and sample

We surveyed 199 patients who attended an Endocrinology outpatient clinic, at a hospital and in primary healthcare. The inclusion criteria were: 1) having DM2 according to the World Health Organization criteria; 2) being ≥18 years of age; 3) being treated in one of the health areas of the provinces where the study was carried out and where their medical records were located; and 4) being willing to participate in the research and answer the questionnaire after signing the informed consent form. Patients with severe mental illness or cognitive deficit (dementia, psychosis or mental retardation) or any other condition that compromised their ability to understand and complete the questionnaire were not included.

Instrument and measurements

The population was characterised according to sociodemographic variables (gender, skin colour, education, whether they lived alone or with other relatives at home), disease-related variables (time since onset and family history of DM, initial and current treatment, if any change of treatment, comorbidities, complications of DM and therapeutic education on diabetes) and clinical variables (fasting blood glucose, weight, height and body mass index).

The ITAS7 was applied to the patients. This instrument is comprised of 16 negative-perception and 4 positive-perception items.

The response options for each of the items are presented on Likert-type scales with the following values: negative opinions (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20), where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree; and positive opinions (3, 8, 17, 19), where 5 = strongly disagree, 4 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = agree, 1 = strongly agree. The survey is scored from 20 to 100 points, and the higher the score the more negative the opinion.

Statistical analysis

Pearson’s Chi-square, Student’s t and Mann-Whitney U tests were used, as appropriate, to detect any statistical differences between patients on insulin or non-insulin treatment for all the variables analysed. The instrument's validity was determined by means of an exploratory factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity were used to identify whether the items clustered a latent factor. The internal consistency and reliability of the scale were calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. A K-means cluster analysis was performed and the total ITAS score was taken as the dependent variable to establish the centre of the cluster with the highest negative-perception values determined by the scale as the cut-off point. The distributions of the quantitative variables and the total score obtained in the questionnaire were compared using the one-way ANOVA test, which made it possible to analyse their variance values according to the cluster they belonged to. Lastly, we determined the relationship between variables of clinical interest and the perception of insulin therapy according to the established cut-off point, through which we identified the variables related to a poorer perception of insulin therapy in the sample studied. For this analysis, Pearson's Chi-square and Student’s t tests for independent samples were used (after checking for normality of distribution according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). The entire study was carried out with a 95% confidence interval.

Ethical considerations

The research was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Each one of the participants was provided with information on the objectives, methods, benefits and risks of the research. Informed consent was obtained and anonymity was guaranteed. There was no potential harm to the participants.

ResultsParticipants’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics

199 patients with DM2 from the Cuban provinces of Pinar del Río (20; 10.1%), Havana (90; 45.2%), Villa Clara (21; 10.6%), Ciego de Ávila (13; 7%) and Santiago de Cuba (54; 27.1%) were surveyed. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients who were part of the study sample according to whether they were insulin users or non-insulin users at the time of the study.

Table 1.

Clinical and epidemiological characteristics reported by diabetic patients according to insulin treatment.

Variables  TreatmentTotal 
  Insulin users  Non-insulin users     
  n (%)  n (%)     
Age (years)a  55.27 ± 19.77  60.49 ± 16.10  57.50 ± 18.49  0.133 
Gender
Male  50 (42.7)  17 (21)  67 (33.8)  0.001b 
Female  67 (57.3)  64 (79)  131 (66.2)   
Skin colour
White (Caucasian)  67 (57.3)  42 (51.9)  109 (55.1)  0.329 
Black  22 (18.8)  12 (14.8)  34 (17.2)   
Mixed race  28 (23.9)  27 (33.3)  55 (27.8)   
Education
No schooling  2 (1.7)  2 (2.5)  4 (2)  0.295 
Primary  14 (12.0)  4 (4.9)  18 (9.1)   
Secondary/High school  17 (14.5)  8 (9.9)  25 (12.6)   
Pre-university  48 (41.0)  34 (42)  82 (41.4)   
University  36 (30.8)  33 (40.7)  69 (34.8)   
Cohabitation
Lives alone  29 (24.8)  16 (19.8)  45 (22.7)  0.406 
Lives with another relative  88 (75.2)  65 (80.2)  153 (77.3)   
Family history of DM
Yes  44 (37.6)  39 (48.1)  83 (41.9)  0.139 
No  73 (62.4)  42 (51.9)  115 (58.1)   
Initial treatment
Diet and exercise  21 (17.9)  25 (30.9)  46 (23.2)  <0.001b 
Oral hypoglycaemic drugs and medications  49 (41.9)  48 (59.3)  97 (49)   
Insulin  42 (35.9)  3 (3.7)  45 (22.7)   
Insulin and oral hypoglycaemic drugs  5 (4.3)  5 (6.2)  10 (5.1)   
Current treatment
Diet and exercise  0 (0)  16 (19.8)  16 (8.1)  <0.001b 
Oral hypoglycaemic drugs and medications  0 (0)  65 (80.2)  65 (32.8)   
Insulin  89 (76.1)  0 (0)  89 (44.9)   
Insulin and oral hypoglycaemic drugs  28 (23.9)  0 (0)  28 (14.1)   
Change of treatment
Yes  79 (67.5)  17 (21.0)  96 (48.5)  <0.001b 
No  38 (32.5)  64 (79.0)  102 (51.5)   
Comorbidities
Yes  75 (64.1)  66 (81.5)  141 (71.2)  0.008b 
No  42 (35.9)  15 (18.5)  57 (28.8)   
Complications
Yes  67 (57.3)  17 (21)  84 (42.4)  <0.001b 
No  50 (42.7)  64 (79)  114 (57.6)   
Type of complications
None  59 (56.2)  58 (80.6)  117 (66.1)  <0.001b 
Nephropathy  5 (4.8)  2 (2.8)  7 (4)   
Retinopathy  9 (8.6)  2 (2.8)  11 (6.2)   
Neuropathy  4 (3.8)  8 (11.1)  12 (6.8)   
Diabetic foot  21 (20)  2 (2.8)  23 (13)   
Retinopathy, neuropathy and diabetic foot  4 (3.8)  0 (0)  4 (2.3)   
Neuropathy and diabetic foot  1 (1)  0 (0)  1 (0.6)   
Nephropathy, neuropathy and diabetic foot  1 (1)  0 (0)  1 (0.6)   
Nephropathy and retinopathy  1 (1)  0 (0)  1 (0.6)   
Previous education about treatment
Yes  105 (89.7)  57 (70.4)  162 (81.8)  0.001b 
No  12 (10.3)  24 (29.6)  36 (18.2)   
Time since onset of DM (years)a  15.11 ± 11.70  10.23 ± 9.41  13.14 ± 11.04  0.001b 
Fasting blood glucose levels (mmol/l)a  7.94 ± 3.84  6.79 ± 1.98  7.47 ± 3.25  0.139 
Weight (kg)a  72.37 ± 11.28  75.25 ± 12.89  73.42 ± 11.93  0.136 
Height (m)a  166.90 ± 11.23  163.23 ± 8.20  165.57 ± 10.36  0.028b 
BMI (kg/m2)a  26.09 ± 4.21  28.79 ± 5.58  27.07 ± 4.91  0.001b 

DM: diabetes mellitus; BMI: body mass index.

a

Result expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

b

Statistically significant.

The mean age was 57.50 ± 18.49 years and the patients were predominantly female, with a pre-university education, living with another family member and no family history of diabetes. 48.5% of the sample had changed treatment at some point. When they were first diagnosed, most patients were taking oral medications (49%), whereas at the time of responding to the survey the percentage of patients who were using insulin only was higher (44.9%).

Most of the patients had no comorbidities or complications from their diabetes and 81.8% of those surveyed had received therapeutic education about the disease. The mean time since the onset of diabetes was slightly higher in insulin users compared to non-insulin users (13.14 ± 11.04 vs 10.23 ± 9.41 years). The sample comprised predominantly overweight patients, with a body mass index of 27.07 ± 4.91 kg/m2.

Application of the scale

Table 2 shows that there were statistically significant differences between insulin users and non-insulin users in terms of the responses given in the ITAS in all the items assessed in the scale, determined by means of the Monte Carlo two-sided asymptotic significance test. The total mean score obtained in the questionnaire was 51.96 ± 10.78, with values ranging from 20 to 76 points. In patients treated with insulin, the scores were significantly lower than those of patients treated with non-insulin regimens (49.79 ± 10.07 vs 55.09 ± 11.12; p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Distribution of the score in the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in patients with type 2 diabetes according to insulin treatment.

Items  Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeStrongly agreepa 
  Insulin users  Non-insulin users  Insulin users  Non-insulin users  Insulin users  Non-insulin users  Insulin users  Non-insulin users  Insulin users  Non-insulin users   
  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)   
1. Taking insulin means I have failed to manage my diabetes with diet and tablets  49 (41.9)  9 (11.1)  7 (6)  21 (25.9)  7 (6)  15 (18.5)  14 (12)  30 (37)  40 (34.2)  6 (7.4)  <0.001 
2. Taking insulin means my diabetes has gotten much worse  51 (43.6)  11 (13.6)  12 (10.3)  19 (23.5)  4 (3.4)  12 (14.8)  20 (17.1)  24 (29.6)  30 (25.6)  15 (18.5)  <0.001 
3. Taking insulin helps to prevent the complications of diabetes  15 (12.8)  6 (7.4)  3 (2.6)  6 (7.4)  8 (6.8)  18 (22.2)  15 (12.8)  39 (48.1)  76 (65)  12 (14.8)  <0.001 
4. Taking insulin means other people see me as a sick person  70 (59.8)  16 (19.8)  12 (10.3)  29 (35.8)  9 (7.7)  6 (7.4)  12 (10.3)  24 (29.6)  14 (12)  6 (7.4)  <0.001 
5. Taking insulin makes life less flexible  80 (68.4)  18 (22.2)  19 (16.2)  29 (35.8)  19 (16.2)  9 (11.1)  11 (9.4)  22 (27.2)  7 (6)  3 (3.7)  <0.001 
6. I am afraid of injecting myself with a needle  90 (76.9)  22 (27.2)  9 (7.7)  16 (19.8)  2 (1.7)  6 (7.4)  8 (6.8)  19 (23.5)  8 (6.8)  18 (22.2)  <0.001 
7. Taking insulin increases the risk of low blood glucose levels (hypoglycaemia)  35 (29.9)  4 (4.9)  15 (12.8)  22 (27.2)  7 (6)  26 (32.1)  16 (13.7)  23 (28.4)  44 (37.6)  6 (7.4)  <0.001 
8. Taking insulin helps to improve my health  20 (17.1)  3 (3.7)  5 (4.3)  10 (12.3)  3 (2.6)  18 (22.2)  20 (17.1)  34 (42)  69 (59.0)  16 (19.8)  <0.001 
9. Insulin causes weight gain  64 (54.7)  12 (14.8)  19 (16.2)  24 (29.6)  17 (14.5)  32 (39.5)  5 (4.3)  11 (13.6)  12 (10.3)  2 (2.5)  <0.001 
10. Managing insulin injections takes a lot of time and energy  86 (73.5)  17 (21)  25 (21.4)  51 (63)  0 (0)  7 (8.6)  1 (0.9)  5 (6.2)  5 (4.3)  1 (1.2)  <0.001 
11. Taking insulin means I have to give up activities I enjoy  92 (78.6)  24 (29.6)  10 (8.5)  36 (44.4)  4 (3.4)  7 (8.6)  4 (3.4)  12 (14.8)  7 (6)  2 (2.5)  <0.001 
12. Taking insulin means my health will deteriorate  79 (67.5)  20 (24.7)  21 (17.9)  29 (35.8)  3 (2.6)  6 (7.4)  7 (6)  23 (28.4)  7 (6)  3 (3.7)  <0.001 
13. Injecting insulin is embarrassing  102 (87.2)  31 (38.3)  10 (8.5)  38 (46.9)  2 (1.7)  6 (7.4)  1 (0.9)  6 (7.4)  2 (1.7)  0 (0)  <0.001 
14. Injecting insulin is painful  90 (76.9)  22 (27.2)  15 (12.8)  35 (43.2)  3 (2.6)  14 (17.3)  4 (3.4)  6 (7.4)  5 (4.3)  4 (4.9)  <0.001 
15. It is difficult to inject the right amount of insulin correctly at the right time every day  94 (80.3)  19 (23.5)  12 (10.3)  34 (42)  5 (4.3)  15 (18.5)  4 (3.4)  7 (8.6)  2 (1.7)  6 (7.4)  <0.001 
16. Taking insulin makes it more difficult to fulfil my responsibilities  92 (78.6)  23 (28.4)  16 (13.7)  40 (49.4)  1 (0.9)  10 (12.3)  3 (2.6)  7 (8.6)  5 (4.3)  1 (1.2)  <0.001 
17. Taking insulin helps to maintain good blood glucose control  13 (11.1)  2 (2.4)  3 (2.6)  7 (8.6)  1 (0.9)  15 (18.5)  22 (18.8)  34 (42)  78 (66.7)  23 (28.4)  <0.001 
18. Being on insulin causes family and friends to be more concerned about me  15 (12.8)  6 (7.4)  8 (6.8)  23 (28.4)  9 (7.7)  23 (28.4)  13 (11.1)  17 (21)  72 (61.5)  12 (14.8)  <0.001 
19. Taking insulin helps to improve my energy levels  12 (10.3)  4 (4.9)  5 (4.3)  17 (21)  6 (5.1)  30 (37)  24 (20.5)  19 (23.5)  70 (59.8)  11 (13.6)  <0.001 
20. Taking insulin makes me more dependent on my doctor  34 (29.1)  16 (19.8)  16 (13.7)  23 (28.4)  9 (7.7)  12 (14.8)  13 (11.1)  16 (19.8)  45 (38.5)  14 (17.3)  <0.001 
a

Monte Carlo two-sided asymptotic significance test.

Internal consistency and reliability of the ITAS

The validity of the measurement instrument was demonstrated by means of an exploratory factor analysis, which made it possible to determine that the sample was adequate for the instrument, as there was an association between the items. This analysis found that all the extracted commonalities were greater than 0.4, with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy greater than 0.5 and a statistical significance of the Bartlett test of sphericity of less than 0.05. These results allow the scale to be legitimately applied and assessed in order to say that it is valid in the sample analysed.

Table 3 shows the reliability analysis by applying Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which enables the internal consistency of the instrument in question to be assessed. The internal consistency of the ITAS proved to be good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.747), which supports the psychometric properties of the scale and demonstrates the high degree of correlation between the items of the instrument. The results of the descriptive reliability analysis for Cronbach's alpha if the element is deleted showed little variation in the results if some of the items are deleted to increase the scale’s reliability and is only slightly higher in items 3, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19, thus confirming the validity and precision of the ITAS instrument.

Table 3.

Analysis of reliability of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in patients with diabetes according to insulin treatment.

Items  Mean of the scale if the element is deleted  Variance of the scale if the element is deleted  Corrected item-total correlation  Cronbach's alpha if the element is deleted 
1. Taking insulin means I have failed to manage my diabetes with diet and tablets  49.12  100.935  0.423  0.727 
2. Taking insulin means my diabetes has gotten much worse  49.19  100.516  0.430  0.726 
3. Taking insulin helps to prevent the complications of diabetes  48.18  112.129  0.106  0.752 
4. Taking insulin means other people see me as a sick person  49.78  100.244  0.504  0.720 
5. Taking insulin makes life less flexible  50.05  100.098  0.582  0.716 
6. I am afraid of injecting myself with a needle  49.94  100.941  0.442  0.725 
7. Taking insulin increases the risk of low blood glucose levels (hypoglycaemia)  48.97  112.009  0.083  0.757 
8. Taking insulin helps to improve my health  48.26  115.234  −0.011  0.762 
9. Insulin causes weight gain  49.84  104.964  0.402  0.730 
10. Managing insulin injections takes a lot of time and energy  50.42  108.598  0.384  0.734 
11. Taking insulin means I have to give up activities I enjoy  50.32  105.127  0.438  0.728 
12. Taking insulin means my health will deteriorate  50.09  99.614  0.615  0.713 
13. Injecting insulin is embarrassing  50.61  110.895  0.303  0.739 
14. Injecting insulin is painful  50.33  103.607  0.534  0.722 
15. It is difficult to inject the right amount of insulin correctly at the right time every day  50.33  105.979  0.424  0.730 
16. Taking insulin makes it more difficult to fulfil my responsibilities  50.42  105.254  0.512  0.726 
17. Taking insulin helps to maintain good blood glucose control  47.95  113.316  0.077  0.753 
18. Being on insulin causes family and friends to be more concerned about me  48.46  115.098  −0.012  0.763 
19. Taking insulin helps to improve my energy levels  48.32  113.835  0.044  0.757 
20. Taking insulin makes me more dependent on my doctor  49.05  107.286  0.210  0.747 

Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.747.

Cut-off point for poor perception of insulin therapy

Table 4 shows the clusters obtained from the K-means analysis, through which three homogeneous groups were created, albeit at the same time significantly different from each other (p < 0.001) according to the ITAS score. The final cluster centres represent the average values of each cluster, so it is interpreted as the mean score obtained by the subjects belonging to each group.

Table 4.

K-means cluster analysis according to score on the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale.

Score on the ITAS scale  Final cluster centresNumber of cases in each clusterRoot mean square  df  ANOVA
     
  65  37  50  58  36  105  23.513  196  390.990  0.000a 

df: degrees of freedom; ITAS: Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale.

a

Statistically significant.

Cluster 1 was comprised of the 58 individuals with the highest scores on the ITAS scale (29.15%), hence its centre is proposed as a reference to establish the cut-off point ≥65 for poor perception of taking insulin in DM2 patients in the sample studied.

Relationship between variables of clinical interest and the ITAS score

Table 5 shows the analysis of variance of the quantitative variables according to the cluster they belong to, from which we found a significant difference in the distribution of the medians of the body mass index and time since the onset of DM variables among the three clusters created according to the ITAS scores. This suggests that there is a relationship between these variables and the perception of taking insulin among diabetic patients.

Table 5.

Analysis of variance of the quantitative variables according to the cluster they belong to

ANOVA
    Sum of squares  df  Root mean square 
Body mass index  Intergroup  249.352  124.676  5.449  0.005a 
  Intragroup  3,706.975  162  22.883     
  Total  3,956.327  164       
Time since onset (years)  Intergroup  810.143  405.072  3.404  0.035a 
  Intragroup  23,323.917  196  119.000     
  Total  24,134.060  198       
Height  Intergroup  660.894  330.447  3.162  0.055 
  Intragroup  16,931.554  162  104.516     
  Total  17,592.448  164       
Weight  Intergroup  143.805  71.903  0.502  0.606 
  Intragroup  23,201.506  162  143.219     
  Total  23,345.312  164       

ANOVA: analysis of variance; df: degrees of freedom.

a

Statistically significant.

Table 6 shows the relationship between variables of clinical interest and perception of insulin therapy according to the established cut-off point on the ITAS scale (≥65), where being female and currently being a non-insulin user were seen to be related to a poorer perception of insulin therapy in the sample studied. These results are based on the fact that there was a high degree of statistical significance according to Pearson's Chi-square test between the clinical variables and the highest scores obtained on the ITAS, and the analysis also included the quantitative variables which had a significantly different distribution among the three clusters created, although they did not present statistical significance as they were related to the cut-off point ≥65.

Table 6.

Relationship between variables of clinical interest and perception of insulin therapy according to the cut-off point established.

Variables of clinical interest  ITAS scale scoreTotal 
  <65  ≥65     
Being female  107 (62.6)  24 (85.7)  131 (65.8)  0.018a 
Skin colour white  92 (53.8)  18 (64.3)  110 (55.3)  0.513 
High educational level  133 (77.8)  19 (67.9)  152 (76.4)  0.336 
Lives alone  39 (22.8)  6 (21.4)  45 (22.6)  1.000 
Family history of DM  75 (43.9)  8 (28.6)  83 (41.7)  0.151 
Has comorbidities  119 (69.6)  23 (82.1)  142 (71.4)  0.259 
Complications of diabetes  76 (44.4)  9 (32.1)  85 (42.7)  0.303 
Previous diabetes education  139 (81.3)  24 (85.7)  163 (81.9)  0.792 
Initial treatment non-insulin  122 (71.3)  22 (78.6)  144 (72.4)  0.501 
Current treatment non-insulin  62 (36.5)  19 (67.9)  81 (40.9)  0.003a 
Body mass indexb  26.87 ± 4.75  29.46 ± 6.217  27.07 ± 4.91  0.067 
Time since onset (years)b  13.67 ± 11.14  9.89 ± 9.96  13.14 ± 11.04  0.093 

DM: diabetes mellitus; ITAS: Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale.

a

Statistically significant.

b

Result expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

Discussion

This is the first study to validate a Spanish version of the ITAS and the first one to apply it to the Cuban population or to that of Latin America and the Caribbean.

In our study, when the ITAS was applied, the average score was above 50 and it was lower in insulin users compared to subjects whose treatment regimens did not include insulin. Another study also concluded that the perception of insulin therapy is more negative in subjects who take oral antidiabetics or other treatments compared to those who take insulin.16 DM patients’ negative perception of their disease has been demonstrated by other authors.17–19

That the majority of patients who were taking insulin had a better perception of the positive-perception items of insulin therapy was an expected outcome, and the majority agreed that insulin “helps to prevent diabetes complications”, “helps to improve my health”, “helps to maintain good blood glucose control” and “helps to improve my energy levels”. For these same items, patients who had not used insulin were found to have a poor perception.

Chen et al.20 recently validated a Chinese version of the ITAS, in which the estimated Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of the whole scale was 0.72; in our case, this value was slightly higher (0.747). However, the Cronbach’s alpha obtained by Lee21 applied to primary care patients in Hong Kong was higher than ours (0.78).

The ITAS can be used as a tool to assess treatment adherence and determine the psychosocial causes of poor metabolic control, as well as to predict which patients will have better treatment adherence if they require insulin therapy.

Ku et al.22 found a relationship between the score obtained on the ITAS and blood glucose control according to the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) criterion. Patients with high HbA1c at diagnosis, in whom insulin therapy is initially necessary, are more likely to be referred to Endocrinology.23 In our case, this measurement of choice for assessing blood glucose control was not available in primary care, where the study was conducted.

Additionally, our study proposes a cut-off point ≥65 as reference for a poor perception of insulin use in DM2 patients. Applying this cut-off point would differentiate patients with scores higher than the root mean square belonging to the cluster with higher scores on the ITAS and consequently those with a poorer perception of insulin use.

Continual therapeutic education is needed for patients with DM2 to have a positive perception about using insulin to control their blood glucose.22 More than a third of DM patients who discontinue drug therapy have an inappropriate perception of their disease,24 with the resulting detrimental effects on metabolic control. Inadequate representation of DM is known to affect emotional state and treatment adherence in patients with this disease.25 This is why it is important to know, a priori, how patients perceive the possible therapeutic options and the effect they may have on their quality of life.

DM2 patients are often overweight or obese, which has a directly proportional relationship with blood glucose control and the time since disease onset. It is therefore normal that the higher the body mass index the poorer a patient's perception of taking insulin will be, as they probably associate this with advanced stages of the disease, weight gain and the failure of oral antidiabetic therapy. However, this relationship was not statistically significant in the sample studied.

Limitations, strengths and conclusions

The limitations of our study include those inherent to cross-sectional studies when statistical rather than causality associations are established. Other limitations include the sampling procedures (non-probabilistic) and the period during which the study was partially halted. The results may have also been influenced by the fact that the survey was applied during an epidemic in which many patients did not have access to follow-up consultations. Additionally, the HbA1c for each patient could not be determined, as the availability of this analysis is limited in primary healthcare in Cuba. Future studies may expand upon the relationship between HbA1c and the ITAS score. Despite these limitations, the validity and internal consistency of the ITAS were demonstrated.

One of the strong points of our research is that it is the first study in Cuba and Latin America to validate a Spanish-language version of the ITAS. Another strength is provided by the representation of patients from different provinces in Cuba. The main contributions are the validation of the ITAS for Cuban DM2 patients and the proposal of the cut-off point ≥65 for poor perception of insulin therapy, in addition to the identification of being female and currently being on non-insulin therapy as variables related to a poorer perception of insulin treatment. Determining which patients have a poorer perception of insulin therapy will allow us to come up with strategies to increase patient education in diabetes and therapy to guarantee better treatment adherence among these patients.

Authorship

Frank Hernández-García: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, fundraising, research, methodology, project manager, resources, supervision, validation, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Víctor Ernesto González-Velázquez: data curation, formal analysis, research, methodology, validation, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Enrique Rolando Pérez García: conceptualisation, data curation, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Luis Alberto Lazo Herrera: data curation, formal analysis, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Elys María Pedraza-Rodríguez: data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Antonio Pupo Pérez: data curation, formal analysis, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Patricia González Quintana: data curation, formal analysis, visualisation, writing-original draft, writing-revision and editing.

Jany Casanovas Figueroa: conceptualisation, fundraising, project manager, resources, supervision, writing-revision and editing.

All the authors approved the final version of the article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References
[1]
International Diabetes Federation [Internet].
IDF Diabetes Atlas.
9th ed., International Diabetes Federation, (2019),
[2]
Ministerio de Salud Pública [Internet].
Dirección de Registros Médicos y Estadísticas de Salud. Anuario Estadístico de Salud 2019.
[3]
R. García, R. Suárez.
Resultados de la estrategia cubana de educación en diabetes tras 25 años de experiencia.
[4]
A. Díaz-Piñera, L. Fernández-González, A. Rodríguez-Salvá, A. Seuc-Jo, N. Álvarez-Mesa.
Evaluación de la calidad del proceso de atención a los diabéticos tipo 2.
Revista Finlay [Internet], 10 (2020), pp. 240-249
[5]
E. Carretero-Anibarro, A. López-Tello, M. Hamud-Uedha, B. Roldan-Reguera.
Grado de conocimiento de insulinización por los médicos de atención primaria y su repercusión en el control de la diabetes.
Semergen, 46 (2020), pp. 379-391
[6]
S. Kalirai, J. Stephenson, M. Perez-Nieves, M. Grabner, I. Hadjiyianni, C. Geremakis, R.D. Pollom, B. Reed, L. Fisher.
Primary care physician perspectives on basal insulin initiation and maintenance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Prim Care Diabetes, 12 (2018), pp. 155-162
[7]
E. Ates, T. Set, Z. Saglam, N. Tekin, I. Karatas Eray, E. Yavuz, et al.
Insulin initiation status of primary care physicians in Turkey, barriers to insulin initiation and knowledge levels about insulin therapy: a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Prim Care Diabetes, 11 (2017), pp. 430-436
[8]
C.G. Taylor Jr, G. Taylor, A. Atherley, I. Hambleton, N. Unwin, O.P. Adams.
Barbados Insulin Matters (BIM) study: Perceptions on insulin initiation by primary care doctors in the Caribbean island of Barbados.
Prim Care Diabetes, 11 (2017), pp. 140-147
[9]
K. Ellis, H. Mulnier, A. Forbes.
Perceptions of insulin use in type 2 diabetes in primary care: a thematic synthesis.
BMC Fam Pract, 19 (2018), pp. 70
[10]
N.A. Lakkis, G.J. Maalouf, D.M. Mahmassani, G.N. Hamadeh.
Insulin therapy attitudes and beliefs of physicians in Middle Eastern Arab countries.
Fam Pract, 30 (2013), pp. 560-567
[11]
M. Castillo Morejón, L. Martín Alonso, K. Almenares Rodríguez.
Adherencia terapéutica y factores influyentes en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2.
[12]
K.J. Londoño, J. Caicedo Galindez, E. Naranjo Lerma, P.A. Rivera.
Evaluación de la adherencia al tratamiento farmacológico en pacientes diabéticos de Jamundí (Valle), Colombia.
[13]
F.J. Snoek, S.E. Skovlund, F. Pouwer.
Development and validation of the insulin treatment appraisal scale (ITAS) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5 (2007), pp. 69
[14]
E. Holmes-Truscott, F. Pouwer, J. Speight.
Further investigation of the psychometric properties of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale among insulin-using and non-insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes: results from Diabetes MILES-Australia.
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 12 (2014), pp. 87
[15]
N. Hermanns, M. Mahr, B. Kulzer, S.E. Skovlund, T. Haak.
Barriers towards insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients: results of an observational longitudinal study.
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8 (2010), pp. 113
[16]
R. Leyva Jiménez, G. Hernández Zambrano, S. Ibarra Maldonado, C.T. Ibarra Ramírez.
Percepción de la insulinoterapia en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 descontrolada.
Aten Primaria, 48 (2016), pp. 543-549
[17]
F.S. Chang, N.N. Wu, C.T. Hung, K.P. Chen, C.C. Chang, C.C. Sun.
The clinical effectiveness of combined educational and self-care interventions in diabetes health care: experiences of a regional teaching hospital in central Taiwan.
Taiwan J Fam Med, 26 (2016), pp. 135-146
[18]
E. Cosson, C. Mauchant, I. Benabbad, G. Le Pape, M. Le Bleis, F. Bailleul, J.D. Lalau.
Perceptions of insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes and physicians: a cross-sectional survey conducted in France.
Patient Prefer Adherence, 13 (2019), pp. 251-260
[19]
E. Holmes-Truscott, J.L. Browne, A.D. Ventura, F. Pouwer, J. Speight.
Diabetes stigma is associated with negative treatment appraisals among adults with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes: results from the second Diabetes MILES - Australia (MILES-2) survey.
Diabet Med, 35 (2018), pp. 658-662
[20]
C.C. Chen, T.C. Li, C.Y. Huang, M.P. Chang.
Validation of the Chinese version of the insulin treatment appraisal scale.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 170 (2020),
[21]
K.P. Lee.
Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale among primary care patients in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Med J, 22 (2016), pp. 306-313
[22]
E.J. Ku, D.H. Lee, H.J. Jeon, F. Park, T.K. Oh.
Psychometric Analysis Regarding the Barriers to Providing Effective Insulin Treatment in Type 2 Diabetic Patients.
Diabetes Ther, 12 (2021), pp. 159-170
[23]
M. Bayón Cabeza, F.J. Pérez Rivas, A.L. Zamora Sarabia.
de Las Heras Mosteiro J, Becerril Rojas B, Rodriguez Barrientos R. Control del paciente diabético en Atención Primaria: influencia de cartera de servicios y otros factores.
Aten Primaria, 52 (2020), pp. 617-626
[24]
Y. Tominaga, D.E. Morisky, M. Mochizuki.
A cross-sectional study clarifying profiles of patients with diabetes who discontinued pharmacotherapy: reasons and consequences.
BMC Endocr Disord, 21 (2021), pp. 117
[25]
Y. García Ortiz, D. Casanova Expósito, G. Raymond Álamo.
Estrés, apoyo social y representación de la enfermedad en pacientes con diabetes mellitus.
Copyright © 2022. SEEN and SED
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos