Diyabet Sağlığını Geliştirme Öz Bakım Ölçeği: Türkçe Formunun Güvenirlik ve Geçerliliği

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 3, 414 - 427, 14.03.2022

Ayfer Peker Selda Mert Yeliz Demirhan İnsaf Altun Canan Baydemir Mehmet Sözen Levent Aydın Berrin Çetinaslan Zeynep Cantürk Alev Selek

https://doi.org/10.20515/otd.1003197

Öz

Bu çalışma, Tip 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) hastalarına yönelik Diyabet Sağlığı Geliştirme Öz Bakım Ölçeği'nin hemşirelik ve tıp literatürüne kazandırılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bu metodolojik tasarım araştırmasının örneklemini tip 2 DM tanısı almış 620 hasta oluşturmuştur. Veriler Kişisel Bilgi Formu ve Diyabet Sağlığı Geliştirme Öz Bakım Ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik aşamasında, madde analizleri, iç tutarlılık ve yapı geçerliliği için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel analiz, ölçeğin güvenirlik katsayısının Cronbach α=0,922 olduğunu göstermiştir. 27 madde ve 7 alt faktörden oluşan Diyabet Sağlığı Geliştirme Öz Bakım Ölçeği'nin alt faktörleri şu şekilde belirlenmiştir: "Kişilerarası İlişkiler", "Kan şekeri kendini izleme", "Kişisel Sağlık Sorumluluğu", "Egzersiz", "Diyet" olarak belirlenmiştir. ", "Önerilen Rejime Uyum" ve "Ayak Bakımı". Analiz sonucunda Diyabet Sağlığı Geliştirme Öz Bakım Ölçeği'nin Türk toplumu için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Diyabette sağlığın teşviki ve geliştirilmesi özbakım, araç geliştirme, güvenilirlik, geçerlik, tip 2 diabetes mellitus

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Diabetes Health Promotion Self-Care Scale: Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version

Öz

This study was carried out to put the Diabetes Health Promotion Self-Care Scale for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) into use for nursing and medical literature. The sample of this methodological design research consisted of 620 patients diagnosed with type 2 DM. The data were collected with Personal Information Form and the Diabetes Health Promotion Self-Care Scale. In the validity and reliability stage of the scale, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes, and structural equation modeling was used for the item analyzes, internal consistency, and structural validity. The statistical analysis showed that the reliability coefficient of the scale was Cronbach α=0.922. The sub-factors of the Diabetes Health Promotion Self-Care Scale consisting of 27 items and 7 sub-factors were determined as "Interpersonal Relationships", "Blood glucose self-monitoring", "Personal Health Responsibility", "Exercise", "Diet", "Adherence to the Recommended Regime", and "Foot Care". As a result of the analysis, the Diabetes Health Promotion Self-Care Scale was found as a valid and reliable scale to be applied to Turkish society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Diabetes health promotion self-care, instrument development, reliability, validity, type 2 diabetes mellitus

Kaynakça

• 1. Ogurtsova K, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Huang Y, Linnenkamp U, Guariguata L, Cho NH, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017 Jun 1;128:40–50.
• 2. Cesare D, Jaime J, Claude JN, Romdhane B, Abdul K, Rashed A, et al. Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: A pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants Author. 2016 [cited 2021 Jan 27]; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736
• 3. Association AD. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in Diabetesd2018. Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2018 Jan 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];41(Supplement 1):S13–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-S002
• 4. Rhys Williams (Chair), Stephen Colagiuri (Deputy Chair), Reem Almutairi, Pablo Aschner Montoya A, Basit, David Beran, Stéphane Besançon, Christian Bommer, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas 9th edition 2019 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Jan 27].
• 5. Satman I, Yilmaz T, Sengül A, Salman S, Salman F, Uygur S, et al. Population-based study of diabetes and risk characteristics in Turkey: Results of the Turkish Diabetes Epidemiology Study (TURDEP). Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2002 Sep 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];25(9):1551–6. Available from: https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/9/1551
• 6. Aguiree F, Brown A, Cho NH, Dahlquist G, Dodd S, Dunning T, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas : sixth edition. 2013 Jan 1;
• 7. Toljamo M, Hentinen M. Adherence to self-care and glycaemic control among people with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2001 Jun 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];34(6):780–6. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01808.x
• 8. Association AD. 5. Lifestyle management: Standards of medical care in diabetesd2019. Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2019 Jan 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];42(Supplement 1):S46–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-S005
• 9. 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 [Internet]. Vol. 39, Diabetes Care. American Diabetes Association Inc.; 2016 [cited 2021 Jan 27]. p. 2126–40. Available from: http://www.diabetesjournals
• 10. Teixeira CR de S, Becker TAC, Citro R, Zanetti ML, Landim CAP. Validação de intervenções de enfermagem em pessoas com diabetes mellitus. Rev da Esc Enferm da USP [Internet]. 2011 Mar 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];45(1):173–9. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0080-62342011000100024&lng=pt&tlng=pt
• 11. Luo X, Liu T, Yuan X, Ge S, Yang J, Li C, et al. Factors Influencing Self-Management in Chinese Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2015 Sep 10 [cited 2021 Jan 27];12(9):11304–27. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/9/11304
• 12. Orem DE. A CONCEPT OF SELF-CARE FOR THE REHABILITATION CLIENT. Rehabil Nurs [Internet]. 1985 May 6 [cited 2021 Jan 27];10(3):33–6. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/j.2048-7940.1985.tb00428.x
• 13. Hartweg DL. Health promotion self-care within Orem’s general theory of nursing. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 1990 Jan 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];15(1):35–41. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1990.tb01670.x
• 14. Kuan G, Kueh YC, Abdullah N, Tai ELM. Psychometric properties of the health-promoting lifestyle profile II: cross-cultural validation of the Malay language version. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2019 Dec 13 [cited 2021 Jan 27];19(1):751. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7109-2
• 15. Wang R-H, Lin L-Y, Cheng C-P, Hsu M-T, Kao C-C. The Psychometric Testing of the Diabetes Health Promotion Self-Care Scale. J Nurs Res [Internet]. 2012 Jun [cited 2021 Jan 27];20(2):122–30. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00134372-201206000-00007
• 16. Wong AKY, Stewart AGO, Furler JS. Development and validation of the Diabetes Management Orientation Scale (DMOS): Assessing culturally related approaches to diabetes self-management. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009 Oct 1;86(1):24–30.
• 17. Nie R, Han Y, Xu J, Huang Q, Mao J. Illness perception, risk perception and health promotion self-care behaviors among Chinese patient with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional survey. Appl Nurs Res. 2018 Feb 1;39:89–96.
• 18. Thewjitcharoen Y, Chotwanvirat P, Jantawan A, Siwasaranond N, Saetung S, Nimitphong H, et al. Evaluation of dietary intakes and nutritional knowledge in Thai patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Res. 2018;2018.
• 19. Sl T, Sakinah JS. Dietary Compliance and its Association with Glycemic Control among Type 2 Diabetic Outpatients 287. Vol. 17, Mal J Nutr. 2011.
• 20. Association AD. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2016 Abridged for Primary Care Providers. Clin Diabetes [Internet]. 2016 Jan [cited 2021 Jan 27];34(1):3–21. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714725/
• 21. Diabetes Mellitus Çalışma ve Eğitim Grubu Türkiye Endokrinoloji ve Metabolizma Derneği. DİABETES MELLİTUS VE KOMPLİKASYONLARININ TANI, TEDAVİ VE İZLEM KILAVUZU [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 27]. Available from: www.bayt.com.tr
• 22. Adisa R, Alutundu MB, Fakeye TO. Factors contributing to nonadherence to oral hypoglycemic medications among ambulatory type 2 diabetes patients in Southwestern Nigeria. Pharm Pract (Granada) [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Jan 27];7(3):163–9. Available from: www.pharmacypractice.org
• 23. Sayin Kasar K, Kizilci S. Oral Antidiyabetik İlaç Kullanım Hataları ve Etkileyen Faktörler Oral Antidiabetic Drugs User Errors and Influencing Factors [Internet]. Vol. 6, Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi Araştırma Makalesi GUSBD. 2017 Sep [cited 2021 Jan 27]. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/gumussagbil/367988
• 24. Tripp-Reimer T, Choi E, Kelley LS, Enslein JC. Cultural Barriers to Care: Inverting the Problem. Diabetes Spectr [Internet]. 2001 Jan 1 [cited 2021 Jan 27];14(1):13–22. Available from: https://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/14/1/13
• 25. Albright JJ, Park HM. Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CALIS [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2021 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath
• 26. Baydemir C, Özdamar K, Ünalır A. Validity of the Turkish version of the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behavior Scale Avrupa Kalp Yetersizliği Öz-Bakım Davranış Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2013;13:573–82.