Diabetes Mellitus, Hipertansiyon ve Hiperlipidemi Bilgi Aracının Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Diabetes mellitus, hipertansiyon ve hiperlipidemi, genellikle birlikte ortaya çıkan ve bir araya geldiklerinde kardiyovasküler riski katlanarak artıran, birbiriyle yakın ilişki içindeki kronik hastalıklardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, diabetes mellitus, hipertansiyon ve hiperlipidemiye yönelik bilgi düzeyini aynı anda ölçebilen kapsamlı bir bilgi aracının psikometrik özelliklerini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmanın örneklemini 384 hasta oluşturmuştur. Ölçeğin geçerliği ve güvenirliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri uygulanmıştır. Demografik değişkenlere göre bilgi puanlarının karşılaştırılmasında bağımsız örneklem t-testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırma bulgularına göre, ulusal literatüre geçerliği ve güvenirliği yüksek bir ölçek kazandırılmıştır. Elde edilen psikometrik bulgular, ölçeğin orijinal formunda rapor edilen yapı ve güvenirlik değerleri ile uyumlu olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca bilgi düzeylerinin bazı sosyodemografik değişkenlere göre anlamlı farklılık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Kadınların diabetes mellitus, genel konular ve toplam bilgi puanları erkeklerden yüksek bulunmuştur. Bekârlar ilaç bilgisi ve toplam puanda evlilerden; lise altı eğitim grubundakiler ise hipertansiyon, hiperlipidemi ve toplam bilgi puanlarında lise ve üzeri eğitim grubundakilerden anlamlı düzeyde yüksek puan almıştır. Yaş, gelir ve eşlik eden diğer kronik hastalıklar ile bilgi puanları arasında ise anlamlı herhangi bir farklılık saptanmamıştır. Sonuç: Bu bulgular, diabetes mellitus, hipertansiyon ve hiperlipidemi bilgi düzeylerini artırmaya yönelik eğitim ve farkındalık çalışmalarında sosyodemografik özelliklerin dikkate alınmasının önemli olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diabetes mellitus
• Hipertansiyon
• Hiperlipidemi
• Kronik hastalık
• Sağlık okuryazarlığı

Etik Beyan

Yazarlar herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmadığını beyan etmektedirler. Ayrıca, yazarların hiçbiri verilerin toplandığı kurumda görev yapmamaktadır ve yazarlar ile ilgili kurum arasında herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmamaktadır.

Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and Hyperlipidemia Knowledge Instrument

Öz

Aim: Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia are closely interrelated chronic diseases that commonly occur together and, when combined, exponentially increase cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of a comprehensive knowledge instrument capable of simultaneously measuring the level of knowledge regarding diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Material and Methods: The sample of the study consisted of 384 patients. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the scale. Independent samples t-test was used to compare knowledge scores according to demographic variables. Results: According to the findings of the study, a scale with high validity and reliability was introduced into the national literature. The psychometric findings obtained indicate that the scale is consistent with the structural and reliability values reported in the original form. In addition, knowledge levels were found to differ significantly according to certain sociodemographic variables. Women had higher scores than men in diabetes mellitus, general topics, and total knowledge scores. Single participants scored significantly higher than married participants in medication knowledge and total scores; participants with below high school education also scored significantly higher than those with high school education and above in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and total knowledge scores. No significant differences were found between knowledge scores and age, income, or the presence of other comorbid chronic diseases. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that sociodemographic characteristics should be taken into consideration in educational and awareness studies aimed at increasing knowledge levels regarding diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diabetes mellitus
• Hypertension
• Hyperlipidemia
• Chronic disease
• Health literacy.

Etik Beyan

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. In addition, none of the authors is employed at the institution where the data were collected, and there is no conflict of interest between the authors and the relevant institution.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Alsaedi R, McKeirnan K. Literature review of type 2 di abetes management and health literacy. Diabetes Spectr. 2021;34(4):399-406. doi:10.2337/ds21-0014.
2. 2. Mishra S, Tiwari P, Yadav R, Patel PS. An extensive analysis of diseases associated with diabetes. J Pharma Insights Res. 2024;2(3):174-187. doi:10.69613/ng1j7s13.
3. 3. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas [In ternet]. 10th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2021 [cited 2026 Apr 19]. p. 75-99. Available from: https://di abetesatlas.org
4. 4. Mirza M, Nishath SH, Saeed FU. The silent storm: Unders tanding hypertension. Int J Innov Sci Res Technol. 2024;9(4). doi:10.38124/IJISRT24APR1387.
5. 5. Cheung BM, Or B, Fei Y, Tsoi MF. A 2020 vision of hyper tension. Korean Circ J. 2020;50(6):469-475. doi:10.4070/ kcj.2020.0067.
6. 6. IHME. Global burden of disease collaborative network. Glo bal burden of disease study 2019 (GBD 2019) results. Seattle (WA): Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; 2020.
7. 7. World Health Organization. Global report on hypertension [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023 [cited 2026 Apr 19]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/ noncommunicable-diseases/hypertension-report
8. 8. Altun B, Arici M, Nergizoglu G, Derici U, Karatan O, Turgan C, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hy pertension in Turkey (the PatenT study) in 2003. J Hypertens. 2005;23(10):1817-1823.

9. 9. Sengul S, Akpolat T, Erdem Y, Derici U, Arici M, Sindel S, et al. Changes in hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control rates in Turkey from 2003 to 2012. J Hypertens. 2016;34(6):1208-1217. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000901.
10. 10. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Türkiye sağlık araştırması raporu 2019 [İnternet]. Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu; 2020 [eri şim tarihi: 19 Nisan 2026]. Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov. tr/Bulten/Index?p=Turkiye-Saglik-Arastirmasi-2019-33661
11. 11. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Sağlık istatistikleri yıllığı 2024. Ankara: T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı; 2024.
12. 12. Lad SS, Kolhe SU, Devade OA, Patil CN, Nalawade RD, Man sabdar AP. Hyperlipidaemia: A review of literature. Res J Phar macol Pharmacodyn. 2023;15(3):127-132. doi:10.52711/2321 5836.2023.00023.
13. 13. Amuamuta A. A review on risk factors/indicators and effects of hyperlipidemia. Middle East J Sci Res. 2014;22(6):886-893. doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.22.06.21499.
14. 14. Lin CF, Chang YH, Chien SC, Lin YH, Yeh HY. Epidemio logy of dyslipidemia in the Asia Pacific region. Int J Gerontol. 2018;12(1):2-6. doi:10.1016/j.ijge.2018.02.010.
15. 15. Mumthaj P, Natarajan P, Janani AM, Vijay J, Gokul V. A glo bal review article on hyperlipidemia. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2021;68(1):104-110. doi:10.47583/ijpsrr.2021.v68i01.018.
16. 16. Verma N. Introduction to hyperlipidemia and its treatment: A review. Int J Curr Pharm Res. 2017;9(1):1. doi:10.22159/ijcpr. 2017v9i1.16616.
17. 17. Kaya E, Sivrikaya SK. Sağlık okuryazarlığı ve hemşirelik. Sü rekli Tıp Eğitimi Derg. 2019;28(3):216-221.
18. 18. Tözün M, Sözmen MK. Halk sağlığı bakışı ile sağlık okuryazar lığı. Smyrna Tıp Derg. 2015;2:48-54.
19. 19. Karataş G, Yava A, Tosun N, Koyuncu A. Hipertansiyon has talarında öz etkililik ve sağlık okuryazarlığının değerlendiril mesi: Güneydoğu Anadolu örneği. Turk J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2024;15(37):79-86. doi:10.5543/khd.2024.98752.
20. 20. Yavuz KE. Yetişkin diyabet bilgi ölçeği’nin (YDBÖ) geliştiril mesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [yüksek lisans tezi]. İs tanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi; 2019.
21. 21. Erkoc SB, Isikli B, Metintas S, Kalyoncu C. Hypertension knowledge-level scale (HK-LS): A study on development, validity and reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(3):1018-1029. doi:10.3390/ijerph9031018.
22. 22. Arıkan İ, Metintaş S, Kalyoncu C, Yıldız Z. Kardiyovaskü ler hastalıklar risk faktörleri bilgi düzeyi (KARRİF-BD) öl çeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Turk Kardiyol Dern Arş. 2009;37(1):35-40.
23. 23. Bryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. London: Routledge; 2002.
24. 24. Lai PS, Chua SS, Tan CH, Chan SP. Validation of the diabe tes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia (DHL) knowledge ins trument in Malaysia. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:1-8. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-18.
25. 25. Care D. Care in diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S17. doi:10.2337/dc22-S002.
26. 26. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(1):52. doi:10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
27. 27. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147.
28. 28. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.
29. 29. Muthén B, Asparouhov T. Item response modeling in Mplus: A multidimensional, multi-level, and multi-timepoint examp le. In: van der Linden WJ, editor. Handbook of item response theory: Models, statistical tools, and applications. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2013. p. 1-29.
30. 30. Aybek G, Karakaş H. Sosyal bilimlerde PLS-YEM kullanım rehberi: Hiyerarşik yapı modellemesi ile bir uygulama. Eski şehir Osmangazi Üniv Sos Bilim Derg. 2023;24(3):656-674. doi:10.17494/ogusbd.1301243.
31. 31. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2014;13(40):39-49. doi:10.25282/ ted.228738.
32. 32. Altunışık R, Coşkun R, Bayraktaroğlu S, Yıldırım E. Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: SPSS uygulamalı. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık; 2007.
33. 33. Kılıç S. Etki büyüklüğü. J Mood Disord. 2014;4(1):44-46.
34. 34. Siddiqui MA, Khan MF, Carline TE. Gender differences in li ving with diabetes mellitus. Mater Sociomed. 2013;25(2):140 142. doi:10.5455/msm.2013.25.140-142.
35. 35. Everett B, Zajacova A. Gender differences in hypertension and hypertension awareness among young adults. Biodemogr Soc Biol. 2015;61(1):1-17. doi:10.1080/19485565.2014.929488.
36. 36. Santosa A, Zhang Y, Weinehall LZ, Wang G, Zhao N, Wang Q, et al. Gender differences and determinants of prevalence, awa reness, treatment and control of hypertension among adults in China and Sweden. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1763. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09862-4.
37. 37. Panahi S, Ghalavand H. The mediating role of health litera cy in the relationship between self-care and planned behavior against COVID-19. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24:608. doi:10.1186/ s12879-024-09513-8.
38. 38. Amr RA, Al-Smadi AM, Akasheh RT. Diabetes knowledge and behaviour: a cross-sectional study of Jordanian adults. Diabe tologia. 2025;68(2):320-330. doi:10.1007/s00125-024-06304-3.
39. 39. Melnikov S. Differences in knowledge of hypertension by age, gender, and blood pressure self-measurement among the Is raeli adult population. Heart Lung. 2019;48(4):339-346. do i:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2019.02.001.
40. 40. Lugo-Mata AR, Urich-Landeta AS, Andrades-Perez AL, Le on-Dugarte MJ, Marcano-Acevedo LA, Guillen MJL. Factors associated with the level of knowledge about hypertension in primary care patients. Med Univ. 2017;19(77):184-188. do i:10.1016/j.rmu.2017.10.008.
41. 41. Kaplan RC, Bhalodkar NC, Brown DL, White J, Brown EJ. Dif ferences by age and race/ethnicity in knowledge about hyper cholesterolemia. Cardiol Rev. 2006;14(1):1-6. doi:10.1097/01. crd.0000160308.62033.29
42. 42. Krause O, Ziemann CT, Schulze Westhoff M, Schröder S, Krichevsky B, Greten S, et al. What do older patients know about their medication? A cross-sectional, interview-based pilot study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;79(10):1365-1374. doi:10.1007/s00228-023-03548-7.
43. 43. Plaza-Zamora J, Legaz I, Osuna E, Pérez-Cárceles MD. Age and education as factors associated with medication lite racy: A community pharmacy perspective. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):501. doi:10.1186/s12877-020-01881-5.
44. 44. Bayati T, Dehghan A, Bonyadi F, Bazrafkan L. Investigating the effect of education on health literacy and its relation to health-promoting behaviors in health center clients. J Educ Health Promot. 2018;7:127. doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_65_18.
45. 45. Coughlin SS, Vernon M, Hatzigeorgiou C, George V. Health literacy, social determinants of health, and disease prevention and control. J Environ Health Sci. 2020;6(1):3061.
46. 46. Stormacq C, Wosinski J, Boillat E, Broucke S. Effects of health literacy interventions on health-related outcomes in socioe conomically disadvantaged adults living in the community: a systematic review. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(7):1389-1469. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-18-00023.
47. 47. Liu H, Wen Y, Wu C, Zhao Y, Lai W, Zhao Y, et al. Exploring health literacy in patients with chronic diseases in Chongqing, China: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e064609. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064609.
48. 48. Cho YI, Lee SY, Arozullah AM, Crittenden KS. Effects of health literacy on health status and health service utilization amongst the elderly. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(8):1809-1816. doi:10.1016/j. socscimed.2008.01.003.
49. 49. Martire LM, Schulz R, Helgeson VS, Small BJ, Saghafi EM. Review and meta-analysis of couple-oriented interventions for chronic illness. Ann Behav Med. 2010;40(3):325-342. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9216-2.
50. 50. Miller TA, Dimatteo MR. Importance of family/social sup port and impact on adherence to diabetic therapy. Diabe tes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity : Targets and Therapy. 2013;6:421-6. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S36368
51. 51. Pan J, Hu B, Wu L, Li Y. The effect of social support on treat ment adherence in hypertension in China. Patient Prefer Ad herence. 2021;15:1953-1961. doi:10.2147/PPA.S325793.
52. 52. Yang C, Zhi J, Xu Y, Fan X, Wu X, Xu DR, et al. A couple-based intervention for Chinese older adults with type 2 diabetes: A ran domized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(1):e2452168. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52168.
53. 53. Mphasha MH, Mothiba TM, Skaal L. Family support in the management of diabetes patients’ perspectives from Limpopo province in South Africa. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:2421. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14903-1.
54. 54. Hu Q, Feng Z, Zong Q, Wang J, Zheng Z, Feng D. Analysis of factors that promote the participation of patients with chronic diseases in shared decision making on medication: A cross-se ctional survey in Hubei Province, China. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):2440. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17099-0.
55. 55. Chekol GZ, Mengistu D, Tadesse AW. Is the duration of dia betes diseases positively associated with knowledge about di abetic complications? Knowledge of diabetes mellitus compli cations and associated factors among type-2 diabetic patients in public hospitals of Addis Ababa, 2020. Front Public Health. 2022;9:812586. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.812586.
56. 56. Cahyaningsih I, Rokhman MR, Maziyyah N, Niamuzisilawati E, Taxis K, Denig P. Translation and validation of the diabe tes knowledge questionnaire in Indonesian patients with type 2 diabetes. Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care. 2024;50(6):484-496. doi:10.1177/26350106241287445.
57. 57. Hildebrand JA, Billimek J, Lee JA, Sorkin DH, Olshansky EF, Clancy SL, et al. Effect of diabetes self-management educati on on glycemic control in Latino adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(2):266-275. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.009