Factors Associated with Knowledge of Diabetes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using the Diabetes Knowledge Test Validated with Rasch Analysis

Eva K Fenwick, Jing Xie, Gwyn Rees, Robert P Finger and Ecosse L Lamoureux

PLOS ONE, 2013, vol. 8, issue 12, 1-8

Abstract: Objective: In patients with Type 2 diabetes, to determine the factors associated with diabetes knowledge, derived from Rasch analysis, and compare results with a traditional raw scoring method. Research Design & Methods: Participants in this cross-sectional study underwent a comprehensive clinical and biochemical assessment. Diabetes knowledge (main outcome) was assessed using the Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT) which was psychometrically validated using Rasch analysis. The relationship between diabetes knowledge and risk factors identified during univariate analyses was examined using multivariable linear regression. The results using raw and Rasch-transformed methods were descriptively compared. Results: 181 patients (mean age±standard deviation = 66.97±9.17 years; 113 (62%) male) were included. Using Rasch-derived DKT scores, those with greater education (β = 1.14; CI: 0.25,2.04, p = 0.013); had seen an ophthalmologist (β = 1.65; CI: 0.63,2.66, p = 0.002), and spoke English at home (β = 1.37; CI: 0.43,2.31, p = 0.005) had significantly better diabetes knowledge than those with less education, had not seen an ophthalmologist and spoke a language other than English, respectively. Patients who were members of the National Diabetes Service Scheme (NDSS) and had seen a diabetes educator also had better diabetes knowledge than their counterparts. Higher HbA1c level was independently associated with worse diabetes knowledge. Using raw measures, access to an ophthalmologist and NDSS membership were not independently associated with diabetes knowledge. Conclusions: Sociodemographic, clinical and service use factors were independently associated with diabetes knowledge based on both raw scores and Rasch-derived scores, which supports the implementation of targeted interventions to improve patients' knowledge. Choice of psychometric analytical method can affect study outcomes and should be considered during intervention development.

Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080593 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 80593&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0080593

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080593

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().