For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
32
views
31
references
 Top references
cited by
17
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      126
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Parental Diabetes Behaviors and Distress Are Related to Glycemic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: Longitudinal Data from the DINO Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate (1) the longitudinal relationship between parental well-being and glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes and (2) if youth's problem behavior, diabetes parenting behavior, and parental diabetes-distress influence this relationship.

          Research Design and Methods

          Parents of youth 8–15 yrs (at baseline) ( N = 174) participating in the DINO study completed questionnaires at three time waves (1 yr interval). Using generalized estimating equations, the relationship between parental well-being (WHO-5) and youth's HbA1c was examined. Second, relationships between WHO-5, Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist (DFBC), Problem Areas In Diabetes-Parent Revised (PAID-Pr) scores, and HbA1c were analyzed.

          Results

          Low well-being was reported by 32% of parents. No relationship was found between parents' WHO-5 scores and youth's HbA1c ( β = −0.052, p = 0.650). WHO-5 related to SDQ ( β = −0.219, p < 0.01), DFBC unsupportive scale ( β = −0.174, p < 0.01), and PAID-Pr ( β = −0.666, p < 0.01). Both DFBC scales (supportive β = −0.259, p = 0.01; unsupportive β = 0.383, p = 0.017), PAID-Pr ( β = 0.276, p < 0.01), and SDQ ( β = 0.424, p < 0.01) related to HbA1c.

          Conclusions

          Over time, reduced parental well-being relates to increased problem behavior in youth, unsupportive parenting, and parental distress, which negatively associate with HbA1c. More unsupportive diabetes parenting and distress relate to youth's problem behavior.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale

          Mette Kjoller, Per Bech, Lis Olsen … (2003)
          The health status questionnaire Short‐Form 36 (SF‐36) includes subscales measuring both physical health and mental health. Psychometrically, the mental health subscale contains a mixture of mental symptoms and psychological well‐being items, among other things, to prevent a ceiling effect when used in general population studies. Three of the mental health well‐being items are also included in the WHO‐Five well‐being scale. In a Danish general population study, the mental health subscale was compared psychometrically with the WHO‐Five in order to evaluate the ceiling effect. Tests for unidimensionality were used in the psychometric analyses, and the sensitivity of the scales in differentiating between changes in self‐reported health over the past year has been tested. The results of the study on 9,542 respondents showed that, although the WHO‐Five and the mental health subscale were found to be unidimensional, the WHO‐Five had a significantly lower ceiling effect than the mental health subscale. The analysis identified the three depression symptoms in the mental health subscale as responsible for the ceiling effect. The WHO‐Five was also found to be significantly superior to the mental health subscale in terms of its sensitivity in differentiating between those persons whose health had deteriorated over the past year and those whose health had not. In conclusion, the WHO‐Five, which measures psychological well‐being, reflects aspects other than just the absence of depressive symptoms. Copyright © 2003 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
          Article 0 comments Cited 264 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians? diagnoses

            Craig B. Lowe (2004)
            The aim of this study was to compare the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the WHO (five) Well Being Index (WBI-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), and physicians' recognition of depressive disorders, and to recommend specific cut-off points for clinical decision making. A total of 501 outpatients completed each of the three depression screening questionnaires and received the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) as the criterion standard. In addition, treating physicians were asked to give their psychiatric diagnoses. Criterion validity and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) were determined. Areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared statistically. All depression scales showed excellent internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha: 0.85-0.90). For 'major depressive disorder', the operating characteristics of the PHQ were significantly superior to both the HADS and the WBI-5. For 'any depressive disorder', the PHQ showed again the best operating characteristics but the overall difference did not reach statistical significance at the 5% level. Cut-off points that can be recommended for the screening of 'major depressive disorder' had sensitivities of 98% (PHQ), 94% (WBI-5), and 85% (HADS). Corresponding specificities were 80% (PHQ), 78% (WBI-5), and 76% (HADS). In contrast, physicians' recognition of 'major depressive disorder' was poor (sensitivity, 40%; specificity, 87%). Our sample may not be representative of medical outpatients, but sensitivity and specificity are independent of disorder prevalence. All three questionnaires performed well in depression screening, but significant differences in criterion validity existed. These results may be helpful in the selection of questionnaires and cut-off points.
            Article 0 comments Cited 248 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

              Brigit van Widenfelt, Arnold Goedhart, Philip D. A. Treffers … (2003)
              A Dutch translation of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was made. In the first wave of data collection, self-report data of 11- to 16-yearolds (N = 970) were collected on the SDQ and other measures of psychopathology. In the second wave of data collection, extended versions of the SDQ were completed by 11- to 16-year-olds (N = 268), by parents of 8- to 16-year-olds (N = 300) and by teachers of 8- to 12-year-olds (N = 208); in addition, the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) was completed by the parents and the Youth Self Report (YSR) by the 11- to 16-year-olds. The results reveal that the internal consistency of the teacher SDQ is good; and the parent and self-report SDQ are generally acceptable and comparable with the internal consistencies of CBCL/YSR. The mean inter-informant product-moment correlations of the SDQ scales were satisfactory (parent-teacher 0.38; teacher-self-report 0.27; parent-self-report 0.35) and comparable with the mean inter-informant correlations of the CBCL and YSR (0.34). The inter-informant rank correlations of the impact questions were also satisfactory (mean parent-teacher 0.48; mean parent-self-report 0.24). Concurrent validity with the other measures of psychopathology used in the present study was good.
              Article 0 comments Cited 212 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Minke M. A. Eilander:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1587-7249
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Diabetes Res
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Diabetes Res
                Journal ID (publisher-id): JDR
                Title: Journal of Diabetes Research
                Publisher: Hindawi
                ISSN (Print): 2314-6745
                ISSN (Electronic): 2314-6753
                Publication date (Print): 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): 10 December 2017
                Volume: 2017
                Electronic Location Identifier: 1462064
                Affiliations
                1Department of Medical Psychology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelenlaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
                2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
                3Diabeter, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Care and Research, Blaak 6, 3011 TA Rotterdam, Netherlands
                4Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands
                5Department of Pediatrics, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
                6Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, Netherlands
                7Department of Pediatrics, Juliana Children's Hospital/Haga Hospital, Els Borst-Eilersplein 275, 2545 AA The Hague, Netherlands
                8Department of Pediatrics, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ Amersfoort, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Andrea Scaramuzza

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1587-7249
                Article
                DOI: 10.1155/2017/1462064
                PMC ID: 5742467
                PubMed ID: 29376080
                SO-VID: 25c097e4-3cfc-4d3b-97e4-b2d6be8a8753
                Copyright © Copyright © 2017 Minke M. A. Eilander et al.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 24 July 2017
                Date revision received : 6 October 2017
                Date accepted : 15 October 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Dutch Diabetes Foundation
                Award ID: 2009.80.103
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content126

                See all similar

                Cited by17

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors355

                See all reference authors