Measuring Perceptions of Diabetes-Related Concepts: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

PURPOSE

this pilot study explored health professionals' and patients' perceptions of diabetes through the development of the Diabetes Semantic Differential Scales (DSDS). These scales evaluate the meaning of diabetes-related concepts.

METHODS

Health professionals (n=39) attending a CME course completed the health professional version of the DSDS. Patients (n=70) completed the patient version of the DSDS.

RESULTS

The reliability of the DSDS was supported. The scale scores of health professionals, African American patients, and Caucasian patients, examined initially by one-way analyses of variance, showed significant differences among the groups for 4 of the 18 diabetes concepts. Effect sizes were also examined among these groups. For 7 concepts, there was a significant practical difference between the perceptions of the health professionals and the African American patients. For the Caucasian patients, differences were noted for 6 concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

There are 3 primary inferences from this pilot study. First, health professionals and patients are likely to hold different perceptions of key diabetes concepts. Second, the concepts on which professionals and patients differ are not always what one would expect. Third, health professionals should clarify patients' understanding of diabetes to minimize the potential for miscommunication.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes in the United States. Atlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1997a.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Diabetes Surveillance, 1997. Atlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation; 1997b.

3. Ong LML , DeHaes JCJM , Hoos AM , Lammes FB . Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 40:903-918.

4. Stewart M , Meredith L , Brown JB , Galajda J. The influence of older patientphysician communication on health and health-related outcomes. Clin Geriatr Med. 2000;16:25-36.

5. Kaplan SH , Greenfield S , Ware JE . Assessing the effects of physician-patient interaction on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989;27:S110-S127.

6. Anderson RM , Herman WH , Davis JM , Friedman RPF Funnell MM , Ne-ighbors HW . Barriers to improving diabetes care for black persons. Diabetes Care. 1991;14:605-609.

7. McCormick WC , Inui TS , Roter DL . Interventions in physician-elderly patient interactions. Res Aging. 1996; 18:103-136.

8. Fook L , Morgan R , Sharma e , Adekoke A , Turnbull C. The impact of hearing on communication. Postgrad Med J. 2000;76:92-95.

9. Greene MG , Adelman RD , Friedmann E. Concordance between physicians and their younger patients in the primary care medical encounter. Gerontologist. 1989;29:808-813.

10.

10. Beisecker AE . Older persons' medical encounters and their outcomes. Res Aging. 1996;18:9-31.

11.

11. Cooper-Patrick L , Gallo JJ , Gonzales JJ , et al. Race, gender and partnership in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 1999;282:583-589.

12.

12. Aufseesser M , Lacroix A , Binyet S , Assal JP Diabetic retinopathy. Interpretation of medical terms by patients. J Francais d' Ophtalmologie. 1995;18:27-32.

13.

13. Hunt LM , Arar NH , Larme AC . Contrasting patient and practitioner perspectives in type 2 diabetes management. West J Nurs Res. 1998;20:656-682.

14.

14. Osgood CE , Suci GJ , Tannenbaum PH . The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, III: University of Illinois Press; 1957.

15.

15. Isaac S , Michael WB . Handbook in Research and Evaluation. 2nd ed. San Diego, Calif: Edits Publishers; 1997.

16.

16. Wikblad KF , Wibell LB , Montin KR . The patient's experience of diabetes and its treatment: construction of an attitude scale by a semantic differential technique. J Adv Nurs. 1990;15:1083-1091.

17.

17. Vogt WP Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1999.

18.

18. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.

19.

19. Fitzgerald JT , Anderson RM , Funnell MM , et al. Differences in the impact of dietary restrictions on African Americans and Caucasians with NIDDM. Diabetes Educ. 1997;23:41-47.

20.

20. Fitzgerald JT , Singleton SP , Neale AV , Prasad AS , Hess JW . Activity levels, fitness status, exercise knowledge, and exercise beliefs among healthy, older African American and white women. J Aging Health. 1994;6:296-313.

21.

21. Lang F , Floyd MR , Beine KL . Clues to patients' explanations and concerns about their illnesses: a call for active learning. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:222-227.

22.

22. Kleinman A. The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing, and the Human Condition. New York: Basic Books; 1988.