ACBRD develops and validates the novel “Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire (GME-Q)”, for use among adults with type 1 diabetes.
By Dr Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott
Several glucose monitoring devices are on the market, though may not be readily accessible to all. In addition to testing the safety, accuracy, and efficacy of glucose monitoring devices, it is essential that we seek to understand the user’s experience. Indeed, satisfaction is associated with long-term use and understanding reasons for dissatisfaction can assist in future technology advancements. Professor Jane Speight and colleagues aimed to develop and validate the novel Glucose Monitoring Experience Questionnaire (GME-Q). The GME-Q assesses satisfaction with glucose monitoring among adults with type 1 diabetes.
The GME-Q was informed by literature review, and interviews with 17 adults with type 1 diabetes. Interview findings confirmed a three domain conceptual framework of satisfaction, including: perceived ‘effectiveness’, ‘intrusiveness’, and ‘convenience’ of glucose monitoring method. A 25-item scale was drafted to reflect identified concepts. The resulting questionnaire asks participants to indicate their level of agreement (5-point Likert scale) with statements about their method of glucose monitoring. For example, “My current method of monitoring…is easy to do”, “…helps me to avoid high glucose”.
The GME-Q was included in a national online survey of 589 Australian adults (average age: 44 ± 15 years; 64% women) with type 1 diabetes who self-monitored their blood glucose using finger-prick devices. Assessment of the scale structure and inter-item correlations suggested the deletion of 3 redundant items. The final 22-item questionnaire, including three domains assessing perceived “effectiveness” [9 items]; “intrusiveness” [6 items]; “convenience” [7 items]), is psychometrical sound and acceptable to participants (98% completion rate). To investigate content validity of the scale, participants were also asked to report the best and worst aspects of their glucose monitoring method. Issues raised were largely reflected in the GME-Q. However, future consideration should be given to the inclusion of items relating to the device connectivity, expense, and ability to support insulin/dietary calculations.
The final 22-item GME-Q is a brief, acceptable, valid, and reliable measure of satisfaction with glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes using finger-prick glucose monitoring devices. Elsewhere, we have reported on the use of the GME-Q to compare satisfaction with glucose monitoring experience between those allocated to continuous versus finger-prick glucose monitoring devices in the HypoCOMPaSS trial.
For information about accessing a copy and use of the GME-Q, click here.
Speight J, Holmes-Truscott E, Singh H, Little S, Shaw JA. Development and Psychometric Validation of the Novel Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2019 Dec 1;21(12):691-701.
Print This Post