Search

Background: Low literacy and numeracy skills are common. Adequate numeracy skills are crucial in the management of diabetes. Diabetes patients use numeracy skills to interpret glucose meters, administer medications, follow dietary guidelines and other tasks. Existing literacy scales may not be adequate to assess numeracy skills. This paper describes the development and psychometric properties of the Diabetes Numeracy Test (DNT), the first scale to specifically measure numeracy skills used in diabetes. Methods: The items of the DNT were developed by an expert panel and refined using cognitive response interviews with potential respondents. The final version of the DNT (43 items) and other relevant measures were administered to a convenience sample of 398 patients with diabetes. Internal reliability was determined by the Kuder-Richardson coefficient (KR-20). An a priori hypothetical model was developed to determine construct validity. A shortened 15-item version, the DNT15, was created through split sample analysis. Results: The DNT had excellent internal reliability (KR-20 = 0.95). The DNT was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with education, income, literacy and math skills, and diabetes knowledge, supporting excellent construct validity. The mean score on the DNT was 61% and took an average of 33 minutes to complete. The DNT15 also had good internal reliability (KR-20 = 0.90 and 0.89). In split sample analysis, correlations of the DNT-15 with the full DNT in both sub-samples was high (rho = 0.96 and 0.97, respectively). Conclusion: The DNT is a reliable and valid measure of diabetes related numeracy skills. An equally adequate but more time-efficient version of the DNT, the DNT15, can be used for research and clinical purposes to evaluate diabetes related numeracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When doctors have honest conversations with patients about their illness and involve them in decisions about their care, patients express greater satisfaction with care and lowered anxiety and depression. The Serious Illness Care Programme (the Programme), originally developed in the United States (U.S), promotes meaningful, realistic and focused conversations about patient's wishes, fears and worries for the future with their illness. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (the guide) provides a framework to structure these conversations. The aim of this paper is to present findings from a study to examine the 'face validity', acceptability and relevance of the Guide for use within the United Kingdom (UK) health care setting.Methods: A multi-stage approach was undertaken, using three separate techniques: 1. Nominal Group Technique with clinician 'expert groups' to review the Serious Illness Conversation Guide: 14 'experts' in Oncology, Palliative Care and Communication Skills; 2. Cognitive Interviews with 6 patient and public representatives, using the 'think aloud technique'; to explore the cognitive processes involved in answering the questions in the guide, including appropriateness of language, question wording and format 3. Final stakeholder review and consensus.Results: Nominal Group Technique Unanimous agreement the conversation guide could provide a useful support to clinicians. Amendments are required but should be informed directly from the cognitive interviews. Training highlighted as key to underpin the use of the guide. Cognitive interviews The 'holistic' attention to the person as a whole was valued rather than a narrow focus on their disease. Some concern was raised regarding the 'formality' of some wording however and suggestions for amendments were made. Final stakeholder review Stakeholders agreed amendments to 5/13 prompts and unanimously agreed the UK guide should be implemented as a part of the pilot implementation of the Serious Illness Care Programme UK.Conclusion: Use of the guide has the potential to benefit patients, facilitating a 'person-centred' approach to these important conversations, and providing a framework to promote shared decision making and care planning. Further research is ongoing, to understand the impact of these conversations on patients, families and clinicians and on concordance of care delivery with expressed patient wishes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]