Responses

PDF

Psychometric testing of the Norwegian Diabetes Health Profile (DHP-18) in patients with type 1 diabetes
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Psychometric testing of the Norwegian Diabetes Health Profile (DHP-18) in patients with type 1 diabetes

    As author of the Diabetes Health Profile, I felt that overall the paper provided a generally balanced report of your study, I have however, a number of issues regarding your report.

    First, although resulting in a high alpha coefficient (0.79), it is incorrect to calculate an alpha score for the total number of items when the scale itself is multidimensional (Oranges and apples). In doing so, it can result in an overall low alpha score. In this case it is fortunate that the value was high. Had this been a low score this would have been perceived as a negative result to the less knowledgeable.

    Secondly, with regard to responsiveness to change, a crude method for measuring change in score was used together with a very limited patient sample. Although the limitation of the methodology was discussed to some extent in the discussion, it would have been preferable at least to measure at both pre and post for each of the three scale domains. Minimally Important Difference (MID) values are available for the DHP that would enable the smallest change in score that is clinically significant to be measured.

    Thirdly, in the section ‘Significance of the study’ it would have been more appropriate that the final comment on implementation in clinical practice and studies should have been limited to the ‘Norwegian’ version of the DHP-18. As currently phrased this is rather general and suggests the use of the DHP-18 in clinical studies per se.

    Finally, permi...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    Author of the Diabetes Health Profile