Journal Information
Vol. 94. Num. 6.November - December 2018
Pages 571-692
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
202
Vol. 94. Num. 6.November - December 2018
Pages 571-692
Original article
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2017.09.009
Open Access
Translation and validation of Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 3.0 Diabetes Module (PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module) in Brazil-Portuguese language
Tradução e validação do Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 3.0 Diabetes Module (PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module) a língua portuguesa do Brasil
Visits
202
Leila F. dos S. Garciaa,
Corresponding author
leila.garcia@hc.fm.usp.br

Corresponding author.
, Thais Della Mannaa,b, Caroline de Gouveia Buff Passoneb, Lygia Spassapan de Oliveirab,c
a Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clínicas, Instituto da Criança, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
b Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
c Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
This item has received
202
Visits

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Tables (3)
Table 1. Clinical and laboratory features from study sample population and time gap between test and retest phases.
Table 2. Scale descriptives for PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes (test–retest phases) and PedsQL™ Questionário pediátrico sobre qualidade de vida versão 4.0 – Português (Brasil) in the study sample.
Table 3. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α-coefficient) and correlation between test–retest phases for PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes among parents/caregivers (2–18 years) and children/adolescents (5–18 years).
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Objective

The aim of the present study was to create a translated version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 3.0 Diabetes Module (PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module) in Brazilian Portuguese that was conceptually equivalent to the original American English version and to linguistically validate it in a Brazilian pediatric population with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their parents or caregivers.

Methods

The instrument was translated, back-translated, and then administered to 83 children/adolescents (5–18 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their family members and to 25 parents/caregivers of patients aged between 2 and 4 years. The final translated version was tested for reliability by analyzing internal consistency, intraobserver (test–retest) reliability, and concurrent validity.

Results

Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total score of the questionnaires of children/adolescents (α=0.85) and their parents (α=0.82) was above the recommended minimum of 0.70 for group comparisons. Intraobserver reliability and concurrent validity exhibited a significant positive correlation (p<0.001), indicating the reliability of the translated instrument. A moderate but significant positive correlation (r=0.40; p<0.001) was demonstrated between the total scores of patient self-report and parent proxy-report scales. There was no significant correlation between glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and the respective scores in the questionnaires answered by patients and their parents/caregivers.

Conclusion

The analysis of the translated version of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module revealed adequate psychometric characteristics with respect to reliability and validity following administration to a sample of Brazilian children/adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their caregivers.

Keywords:
Validation studies
Quality of life
Type 1 diabetes mellitus
Child
Adolescent
Resumo
Objetivo

Produzir uma versão do questionário Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory3.0 Diabetes Module (PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module) para a língua portuguesa do Brasil, que fosse conceitualmente equivalente à versão original em inglês, e proceder à sua validação linguística numa população pediátrica brasileira portadora de diabetes melitus tipo 1 (DM1) e seus pais ou cuidadores.

Métodos

A tradução do instrumento foi feita pela metodologia de tradução-tradução reversa, foi aplicado a 83 crianças/adolescentes (5-18 anos) portadores de diabetes mellitus tipo 1 com seus parentes e a 25 pais/cuidadores de pacientes entre 2 e 4 anos de idade. A confiabilidade da versão traduzida foi avaliada pelas seguintes análises: consistência interna, confiabilidade teste-reteste e validade concorrente.

Resultados

O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach para a pontuação total do questionário das crianças/adolescentes (α=0,85) e seus pais (α=0,82) excedeu o mínimo recomendado 0,70 para comparação entre grupos. Na confiabilidade intraobservador e validade concorrente observou-se correlação positiva e estatisticamente significativa (p<0,001), indicou indicando a fidedignidade do instrumento traduzido. Na comparação entre os escores totais obtidos por pais/cuidadores e crianças/adolescentes, houve uma correlação positiva, pequena, mas significativa (r=0,40; p<0,001). Não houve correlações estatisticamente significativas entre os níveis de hemoglobina glicada e os escores obtidos nos questionários respondidos pelos pacientes e seus pais/cuidadores.

Conclusão

As análises do instrumento PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes demonstraram propriedades psicométricas adequadas em termos de confiabilidade e validade quando aplicado nessa amostra de crianças/adolescentes brasileiros portadores de DM tipo 1 e seus cuidadores.

Palavras-chave:
Estudos de validação
Qualidade de vida
Diabetes mellitus tipo 1
Criança
Adolescente
Full Text
Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most common metabolic diseases worldwide, and its prevalence has increased in the past decades. Approximately 90% of cases in children aged under 15 years are classified as type 1 DM (DM1), with an autoimmune cause, representing one of the main chronic pediatric diseases. Unfortunately, DM diagnosed during childhood presents an increased risk of complications in an early and productive stage, leading to a reduction in mean life expectancy of 10 to 20 years, a result that is especially prevalent in developing countries.1

Prospective clinical studies have clearly shown that a strict glycemic control from disease onset can delay or even prevent the onset of DM-related chronic vascular complications.2,3 However, strategies to prevent severe recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia must also be developed.4,5 In this sense, daily management of DM1 poses countless challenges to the achievement of satisfactory metabolic control, because it requires complex treatment through multiple insulin injections, frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose, strict mealtime schedule, regular physical exercise, and frequent contact with healthcare professionals,6,7 all of which could impact the quality of life of patients, especially children and adolescents.8,9

In the past decade, interest in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has increased significantly and become an essential outcome measure in clinical trials and evaluations of healthcare services.10

The various aspects of health addressed by HRQOL are specific to each stage of cognitive development in children, and can reveal problems that even parents fail to notice. Thus, a standardized HRQOL assessment instrument would be highly useful for detecting physical and emotional concerns from the perspectives of both children and caregivers.10 To be useful in clinical practice, HRQOL questionnaires must meet the following criteria: (a) they must be brief, with reliability and validity to provide adequate non-biased information; (b) they must be designed for parents and children, being easy to interpret and score; and (c) they must be sensitive to sudden changes in patients’ attitudes.10,11 The lack of an effective instrument to assess HRQOL in children aged under 11 years motivated Varni et al. to develop the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™), which includes both a generic scale for chronic diseases (PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales) and a scale specific to certain diseases,12 including a HRQOL scale for children and adolescents with DM1 between 2 and 18 years of age and their parents or caregivers, called Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 3.0 Diabetes Module (PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module).13–16

The aims of the present study were to create a translated version of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module in Brazilian Portuguese that was conceptually equivalent to the original American English version13 and easy to understand, as well as to linguistically validate the instrument in a Brazilian pediatric population with DM1, making it possible to assess quality of life specifically related to this disease.

Methods

The PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module is composed of self-report questionnaires on the quality of life of children/adolescents in the age ranges of 5–7, 8–12, and 13–18 years, paired with questionnaires assessing their quality of life from their parents’/caregivers’ perspectives (parent proxy-report); the latter also answer questionnaires about children in the age range of 2–4 years. Each questionnaire contains 28 items, classified into five domains or subscales as follows: (1) diabetes symptoms (11 items); (2) treatment barriers (4 items); (3) treatment adherence (7 items); (4) worry (3 items); and (5) communication (3 items). The initial instructions ask respondents to indicate to what extent each item has been problematic during the past month on a five-point scale (0=never a problem; 1=almost never a problem; 2=sometimes a problem; 3=often a problem; and 4=almost always a problem). Items are then reverse-scored and linearly transformed into a Likert scale with a 0–100 range (0=100, 1=75, 2=50, 3=25, 4=0), so that higher scores indicate better HRQOL. The questionnaire for children aged 5–7 years contains three choices for each item, specifically, “not at all a problem for you” (0=100), “sometimes a problem for you” (2=50), and “a problem for you a lot” (4=0) answers that are anchored to a face scale composed of a smiling, a middle, and a frowning face, respectively.12,13

The transcultural translation of the instrument followed the forward translation and back-translation method,17,18 in close collaboration with the Mapi Research Institute in Lyon, France and with the consent of the author, Dr. J.W. Varni.19 The translation included the following phases.

Phase 1

Independent translations of the original version of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module from US English (source language) to Brazilian Portuguese (target language) were performed by two local professional translators (MMP and BFL), whose native language is Brazilian Portuguese. Both versions were discussed by the translators and researchers to obtain agreement on a single version of the questionnaire, which should be conceptually equivalent to the original questionnaire, using colloquial and simple language.

Phase 2

The Portuguese version was then back-translated into American English by a translator (EA), whose native language is English. The original instrument was compared with the back-translated version at a meeting between the translator and the researchers, to detect misunderstandings, translation errors, and inaccuracies in the version produced in Phase 1. A report was sent to the group headed by Dr. J.W. Varni, author of the original PedsQL™; they suggested no changes.

Phase 3

According to the standard cognitive interview of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module,13,19 the translated version was administered to groups of patients of each age range and their parents/caregivers. The aim of this phase was to determine whether the translated questionnaire was acceptable, used simple language, was easy to understand, and maintained the meanings of the American English terms. Additionally, the time needed for completion of the questionnaire was determined. Interviews with children were conducted separately (in different rooms) from those of their parents. The number of interviewees per age range was 2–4 years (n=4), 5–7 years (n=4), 8–12 years (n=5), and 13–18 years (n=5). Questionnaires were completed within approximately 15min per patient/parent, except for the age range of 5–7 years, which required 15–20min for completion. This is because for each question, the child had to choose a face that indicated the degree of difficulty of the respective item. Throughout the age ranges, the interviewees did not know the meaning of “identification card,” which is a small card containing information on the treatment of hypoglycemia, drugs used, emergency numbers, and of “fast-acting carbohydrate” (items 5 and 6 of the Treatment adherence domain). A report was produced in English and, after further review, Dr. J.W. Varni suggested including examples of fast-acting carbohydrates and showing an identification card.

Therefore, the final version in Brazilian Portuguese was created and designated PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes. To validate it (Phase 4 – Field test), patients regularly attended to at the Diabetes Outpatient Clinic of Instituto da Criança do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), at the Endocrinology and Metabolism Outpatient Clinic – Diabetes Unit – HCFMUSP, and at private practices, as well as those who voluntarily participated in activities coordinated by the Juvenile Diabetes Association – São Paulo were invited to answer the questionnaires from August 2014 to February 2017. Patients within the age range of 2–18 years, diagnosed with DM1 at least one year prior to the study, and accompanied by at least one parent or caregiver at the clinic appointment, were included. Exclusion criteria were the presence of physical and/or mental comorbidities and a need for daily insulin dose below 0.5U/kg/day. Other data collected included the age at diagnosis, duration of DM1, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, which were quantified using the Bio-Rad HPLC Variant II (Bio-Rad®, SP, Brazil) method at the time that the instrument was administered.

Questionnaires were answered by children/adolescents and their parents/caregivers separately on the day of a medical appointment (test phase) and re-administered after a 15-day to 3-month interval (retest phase). The researcher personally administered the questionnaires to children in the 5–7-year age range and to illiterate individuals, whereas children older than 8 years, adolescents, and adults answered the questionnaire in the waiting room, with no interference by the researcher.

The reliability of the Brazilian version (PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes) was assessed using the analyses of internal consistency, intraobserver reliability (test–retest), and concurrent validity, assessed through: (a) associations between scores on this instrument and those of a generic pediatric quality of life questionnaire previously translated and validated in Brazil (PedsQL™ Questionário pediátrico sobre qualidade de vida Versão 4.0 – Português [Brasil])16; (b) correlation between PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes total score and patient HbA1c levels; and (c) correlations between the scores obtained on patient self-report (5–18 years) and parent proxy-report scales.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for the Analysis of Research Projects (No. 555659). Patients and their relatives/caregivers were informed about the objectives of the study and asked to read and sign the informed assent/consent forms.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistical analysis was used for clinical and laboratory patient characterization and for analysis of total score on the PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes and its subscales. Internal consistency (inter-item correlation) was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient20: an alpha value>0.7 was considered fair, an alpha value>0.81, good, and an alpha value>0.91, excellent.21 Reliability scales0.70 are recommended for comparisons of patient groups, whereas those with a reliability criterion of 0.90 are recommended for the analysis of individual patient scores.12,13,22 Intraobserver reliability and concurrent validity were assessed using Pearson's correlation test. The degree of correlation (r) between variables was designated as small (0.3–0.49), medium (0.5–0.7), or large (>0.7).23 All analyses were performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 20.0. NY, USA),24 and the statistical significance level adopted was p<0.05.

Results

Of the 127 eligible participants, 83 patients (5–18 years) and 108 parents/caregivers (2–18 years) completed all questions of the instrument in the test and retest phases. Table 1 shows the distribution of the studied population according to age range, clinical characteristics, and mean HbA1c level.

Table 1.

Clinical and laboratory features from study sample population and time gap between test and retest phases.

  n  Characteristics of the study population 
Gender (female/male)  108  49/59 
Age group
2–4 years  25   
5–7 years  25   
8–12 years  29   
13–18 years  29   
Age at diabetes onset (years) (mean±SD)  105  4.40±3.09 
Duration of diabetes (years) (mean±SD)  105  5.14±4.09 
HbA1c (mean)  104  8.9% 
2–4 years  24  8.6% 
5–7 years  25  8.3% 
8–12 years  27  8.7% 
13–18 years  28  9.8% 
Time gap between test and retest (days) (mean±SD)  108  67.68±19.54 
15–45 days (%)  17  15.7% 
46–75 days (%)  54  50.0% 
76–90 days (%)  37  34.3% 

Among the parents/caregivers who completed the instrument (n=108), 34.3% were within the age range of 31–40 years, and 31.5% were within the age range of 41–50 years. Mothers comprised most of this sample (88.9%).

Descriptive analyses of the total score and subscale scores of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes (test–retest phases) and of the PedsQL™ Questionário pediátrico sobre qualidade de vida Versão 4.0 – Português (Brasil) of the studied population are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Scale descriptives for PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes (test–retest phases) and PedsQL™ Questionário pediátrico sobre qualidade de vida versão 4.0 – Português (Brasil) in the study sample.

Scale  n  TestRetest
    Mean  Minimum  Maximum  Mean  Minimum  Maximum 
PedsQL3.0 Módulo Diabetes
Child self-reporta
Diabetes symptoms  83  59.5  20.5  100.0  57.9  22.7  93.2 
Treatment barriers  83  63.6  12.5  100.0  64.4  6.3  100.0 
Treatment adherence  83  60.0  14.3  100.0  72.2  7.1  100.0 
Worry  83  49.7  0.0  100.0  46.6  0.0  100.0 
Communication  83  63.5  0.0  100.0  65.6  0.0  100.0 
Total score  83  62.1  25.0  100.0  62.0  25.9  91.1 
Parent proxy-reportb
Diabetes symptoms  108  57.4  15.9  95.5  57.3  15.9  100.0 
Treatment barriers  108  58.4  18.8  100.0  61.1  6.3  100.0 
Treatment adherence  108  71.4  17.9  100.0  71.5  10.7  100.0 
Worry  108  39.0  0.0  100.0  42.4  0.0  100.0 
Communication  108  65.3  0.0  100.0  64.8  0.0  100.0 
Total score  108  59.9  33.0  97.3  60.6  30.4  94.6 
PedsQLQuestionário pediátrico sobre qualidade de vida versão 4.0 – Português (Brasil)
Child self-reporta
Physical health  83  78.8  37.5  100.0  –  –  – 
Emotional functioning  83  62.1  5.0  100.0  –  –  – 
Social functioning  83  84.0  20.0  100.0  –  –  – 
School functioning  83  67.6  25.0  100.0  –  –  – 
Total score  83  73.86  41.30  95.65  –  –  – 
Parent proxy-reportb
Physical health  108  75.1  28.1  100.0  –  –  – 
Emotional functioning  108  61.5  20.0  100.0  –  –  – 
Social functioning  108  84.1  35.0  100.0  –  –  – 
School functioning  108  62.8  15.0  100.0  –  –  – 
Total score  108  70.9  38.0  92.4  –  –  – 
a

Children/adolescents aged 5–18 years.

b

Parents of children/adolescents aged 2–18 years.

Internal consistency reliability

Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the fully translated PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes was 0.85 for children/adolescents and 0.82 for their parents/caregivers (Table 3). In a separate analysis of subscales, the following coefficients were obtained: diabetes symptoms (αchildren=0.76; αparents=0.77), worry (αchildren=0.72; αparents 0.82), communication (αchildren=0.79; αparents=0.82), treatment adherence (αchildren=0.71; αparents=0.68), and treatment barriers (αchildren=0.58; αparents=0.54).

Table 3.

Internal consistency (Cronbach's α-coefficient) and correlation between test–retest phases for PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes among parents/caregivers (2–18 years) and children/adolescents (5–18 years).

Scale  Number of items  n  α  r (test–retest)  p-Value 
Child self-report (5–18 years)
Diabetes symptoms  11  83  0.76  0.60  <0.001 
Treatment barriers  83  0.58  0.56  <0.001 
Treatment adherence  83  0.71  0.59  <0.001 
Worry  83  0.72  0.48  <0.001 
Communication  83  0.79  0.52  <0.001 
Total score  28  83  0.85  0.61  <0.001 
Parent proxy-report (2–4 years)
Diabetes symptoms  11  25  –  0.83  <0.001 
Treatment barriers  25  –  0.62  0.001 
Treatment adherence  25  –  0.66  <0.001 
Worry  25  –  0.65  <0.001 
Communication  25  –  0.28  0.180 
Total score  28  25  –  0.72  <0.001 
Parent proxy-report (5–18 years)
Diabetes symptoms  11  83  –  0.57  <0.001 
Treatment barriers  83  –  0.65  <0.001 
Treatment adherence  83  –  0.58  <0.001 
Worry  83  –  0.71  <0.001 
Communication  83  –  0.52  <0.001 
Total score  28  83  –  0.66  <0.001 
Parent proxy-report (2–18 years)
Diabetes symptoms  11  108  0.77  –  – 
Treatment barriers  108  0.54  –  – 
Treatment adherence  108  0.68  –  – 
Worry  108  0.82  –  – 
Communication  108  0.82  –  – 
Total score  28  108  0.82  –  – 
Intraobserver reliability

During the test and retest phases (Table 3), for the parent/caregiver group (2–4 years), a significant correlation was observed between total scores (r=0.72; p<0.001) and all subscale scores (r=0.62–0.83; p<0.001), except in the domain communication (r=0.28; p=0.180), whereas those in age range 5–18 years presented a positive correlation (0.52–0.71; p<0.001) between all scores. A positive correlation was also observed in patient self-report scales (0.52–0.61; p<0.001) in both phases.

Concurrent validity

In comparing the total scores on the PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes and the PedsQL™ Questionário pediátrico sobre qualidade de vida Versão 4.0 – Português (Brasil), a significant positive correlation was observed between parent proxy-report scales of children in the age range of 2–4 and 5–18 years (r=0.48 and 0.55, respectively; p=0.016 and p<0.001), as well as between patient self-report scales (r=0.56; p<0.001).

A significant positive correlation was observed between the total scores of the parent proxy-report and patient (5–18 years) self-report scales (r=0.40; p<0.001), as well as in the subscales diabetes symptoms (r=0.43; p<0.001), treatment barriers (r=0.38; p<0.001), and communication (r=0.42; p<0.001).

In contrast, in this population sample, no significant correlation was observed between glycemic control, based on HbA1c level, and total scores obtained in parent-child reports (r=−0.08 to −0.23; p>0.05; Fig. 1A–C).

Figure 1.
(0.17MB).

Correlation between PedsQL™ Módulo Diabetes total score and HbA1c in the study population: (A) children/adolescents (5–18 years); (B) parent/caregivers (2–4 years); (C) parent/caregivers (5–18 years).

Discussion

After the changes made to the second translated version of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module, the new instrument, now designated PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes, presented simple language and was easily understood by the studied population.

The scores obtained by the present sample of Brazilian children and adolescents with DM1 were lower than those obtained in studies in Kuwait,14 Italy,15 and Greece,25 and similar to those obtained in a study in Iran.26 Furthermore, the total score on the questionnaires completed by parents/caregivers was lower than that on the questionnaires completed by children/adolescents, as also observed in other studies.14,25

The internal reliability of the total scale of the translated questionnaire (αchildren=0.85; αparents=0.82) was above the recommended minimum (α=0.70) for comparison between groups,13,22 and exceeded the values found in the Greek,25 Italian,15 and Arabic versions.14 In the analysis of each subscale individually, the domains treatment adherence (α=0.71) and worry (α=0.72) in the questionnaires for children/adolescents (5–18 years) presented higher coefficients than those domains in the original American English13 and Italian15 versions. However, the domain treatment barriers in both questionnaires and treatment adherence in the parents’ questionnaire presented coefficients below 0.70, which suggests that the internal validity of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module lies in its entirety, thus not allowing for a fragmented application of its subscales. This trend was also observed in the original version13 and in the Greek,25 Italian,15 and Persian26 translations.

The intraobserver reliability was moderate for all age ranges. The results suggest an estimate of adequate reliability for the translated instrument; however, it should be noted that this finding might have been influenced by external factors, such as variables related to the disease itself and its treatment, as well as the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the population.13,20

In the concurrent validation process, a small to medium correlation was observed between the PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes and the generic questionnaire, as was also observed in other versions,14,25 except in the original American English version.13 Although both questionnaires assess the construct “quality of life,” their items address different contexts of chronic diseases.27 In particular, the generic instrument focuses on physical ability and school functioning, which usually are not problematic for children and adolescents with DM1.

In the present study, a small and positive association was observed between patient self-report and parent proxy-report scales for both the total score (r=0.40) and most of the subscale scores (diabetes symptoms, treatment barriers, and communication; r=0.38–0.43). The original version of the instrument13 (r=0.28–0.47) and the Italian15 (r=0.28–0.54) and Greek25 (r=0.47–0.62) versions presented medium correlations in most domains. Such variations support the importance of not only assessing the perspectives of children/adolescents, but also those of their respective parents/caregivers, as these, even if different, represent additional aspects of the assessment of pediatric HRQOL.13,16

Although negative correlations of small to medium intensity have been observed between HbA1c and the original American English version of the questionnaire,13 other studies, such as the present, have not found such an association.25 Generally, quality of life scores tend to correlate modestly with clinical results, suggesting that clinical and human outcomes are relatively independent, i.e., they measure different and probably complementary domains.28 In turn, the results of recently published studies29,30 suggest that better metabolic control is associated with improved HRQOL in children and adolescents with DM1.

The main strengths of the present study are the inclusion of children and adolescents within the age range of 2–18 years, the confirmation of internal reliability of the translated version, the positive correlation with another questionnaire already validated for Brazil, and, finally, the fact that this is the first instrument that can be used to evaluate HRQOL specifically in a pediatric population (2–18 years) with DM1 in the Brazilian Portuguese language.

However, some limitations of the study should be mentioned: the relatively small sample size, the predominant use of a single tertiary center, and the lack of a factorial analysis that would enable an assessment of whether all items of the instrument measure a single dimension. In turn, both the original validation study13 and those of versions in other languages14,25,26 included a similar number of patients as the present study.

In conclusion, the PedsQL™ 3.0 Módulo Diabetes was found to be easily understood and quickly completed by children and adolescents within a broad age range. The calculation of scores by the researcher was also simple, which facilitates its use in clinical research. The group of parents and caregivers viewed the instrument as an important way to express their concerns and needs regarding the chronic disease of their children. The analyses performed confirmed that the instrument has the psychometric properties needed for reliability and validity and, hence, that it is applicable to Brazilian children/adolescents with DM1 and their caregivers.

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. J.W. Varni, Mapi Research Institute, Endocrinology and Metabology ambulatory – Diabetes Division at HCFMUSP, Juvenile Diabetes Association – SP and all patients from the specialty ambulatory of Institute of Child at HCFMUSP and their parents’ participation in this study.

References
[1]
C. Patterson,L. Guariguata,G. Dahlquist,G. Soltész,G. Ogle,M. Silink
Diabetes in the young – a global view and worldwide estimates of numbers of children with type 1 diabetes
Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 103 (2014), pp. 161-175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.005
[2]
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group,D.M. Nathan,S. Genuth,J. Lachin,P. Cleary,O. Crofford
The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
N Engl J Med, 329 (1993), pp. 977-986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199309303291401
[3]
N.H. White,P.A. Cleary,W. Dahms,D. Goldstein,J. Malone,W.V. Tamborlane
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Research Group. Beneficial effects of intensive therapy of diabetes during adolescence: outcomes after the conclusion of the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT)
J Pediatr, 139 (2001), pp. 804-812
[4]
M.J. Rewers,K. Pillay,C. de Beaufort,M.E. Craig,R. Hanas,C.L. Acerini
Assessment and monitoring of glycemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes
Pediatr Diabetes, 15 (2014), pp. 102-114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12190
[5]
American Diabetes Association
11. Children and adolescents
Diabetes Care, 39 (2016), pp. S86-S93 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc16-S014
[6]
I. Guttmann-Bauman,B.P. Flaherty,M. Strugger,R.C. McEvoy
Metabolic control and quality of life self-assessment in adolescents with IDDM
Diabetes Care, 21 (1998), pp. 915-918
[7]
S.S. Jaser,M.S. Faulkner,R. Whittemore,S. Jeon,K. Murphy,A. Delamater
Coping, self-management and adaptation in adolescents with type 1 diabetes
Ann Behav Med, 43 (2012), pp. 311-319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9343-z
[8]
R.R. Rubin
Quality of life and diabetes
Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 15 (1999), pp. 205-218
[9]
Reliability and validity of a diabetes quality-of-life measure for the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT). The DCCT Research Group
Diabetes Care, 11 (1988), pp. 725-732
[10]
J.W. Varni,T.M. Burwinkle,M.M. Lane
Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric clinical practice: an appraisal and precept for future research and application
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 3 (2005), pp. 34 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-34
[11]
J.W. Varni,M. Seid,T.S. Knight,K. Uzark,I.S. Szer
The PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales: sensitivity, responsiveness, and impact on clinical decision-making
J Behav Med, 25 (2002), pp. 175-193
[12]
J.W. Varni,M. Seid,P.S. Kurtin
PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Version 4.0 Generic Core Scales in healthy and patient populations
Med Care, 39 (2001), pp. 800-812
[13]
J.W. Varni,T.M. Burwinkle,J.R. Jacobs,M. Gottschalk,F. Kaufman,K.L. Jones
The PedsQL in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales and type 1 Diabetes Module
Diabetes Care, 26 (2003), pp. 631-637
[14]
M.A. Rasoul,F.A. Otaibi,M.A. Mahdi,H.A. Kandari
Reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the PedsQL™ 4.0 generic core scales and PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module
JDM, 2 (2012), pp. 301-307
[15]
G. d’Annunzio,S. Gialetti,C. Carducci,I. Rabbone,D. Lo Presti,S. Toni
Italian translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module questionnaire in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 12 (2014), pp. 115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0115-2
[16]
D.A. Klatchoian,C.A. Len,M.T. Terreri,M. Silva,C. Itamoto,R.M. Ciconelli
Quality of life of children and adolescents from São Paulo: reliability and validity of the Brazilian version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ version 4.0 Generic Core Scales
J Pediatr (Rio J), 84 (2008), pp. 308-315
[17]
F. Guillemin,C. Bombardier,D. Beaton
Cross-cultural adaptation of health related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines
J Clin Epidemiol, 46 (1993), pp. 1417-1432
[18]
M. Bullinger,J. Alonso,G. Apolone,A. Leplege,M. Sullivan,S. Wood-Dauphinee
Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment
J Clin Epidemiol, 51 (1998), pp. 913-923
[19]
J.W. Varni
PedsQL™ Translation Methodology™
(1998–2015)
Available from: http://www.pedsql.org/translations.html [cited 19 Sep 2000]
[20]
L. Pasquali
Psicometria: teoria dos testes na psicologia e na educação
5th ed., Vozes, (2013)
[21]
R.F. DeVellis
Scale development: theory and applications
3rd ed., Sage, (2012)
[22]
J.W. Varni,M. Seid,C.A. Rode
The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory
Med Care, 37 (1999), pp. 126-139
[23]
P.A. Morettin,W.O. Bussab
Estatística básica
Saraiva, (2013)
[24]
IBM Corp
Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0
IBM Corp, (2011)
[25]
E. Emmanouilidou,A. Galli-Tsinopoulou,A. Karavatos,S. Nousia-Arvanitakis
Quality of life of children and adolescents with diabetes of Northern Greek origin
Hippokratia, 12 (2008), pp. 168-175
[26]
P. Jafari,E. Forouzandeh,Z. Bagheri,Z. Karamizadeh,K. Shalileh
Health related quality of life of Iranian children with type 1 diabetes: reliability and validity of the Persian version of the PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales and Diabetes Module
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 9 (2011), pp. 104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-104
[27]
K.M. Almeida,M.V. Dutra,R.R. Mello,A.B. Reis,P.S. Martins
Concurrent validity and reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in premature infants
J Pediatr (Rio J), 84 (2008), pp. 442-448
[28]
C.A. McHorney
The potential clinical value of quality of life information response to Martin
Med Care, 40 (2002), pp. III56-III62
[29]
J.B. Anderson,L.M. Laffel,C. Domenger,T. Danne,M. Phillip,C. Mazza
Factors associated with diabetes-specific health-related quality of life in youth with type 1 diabetes: the Global TEENs Study
Diabetes Care, 40 (2017), pp. 1002-1009 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1990
[30]
M. Samardzic,H. Tahirovic,N. Popovic,M. Popovic-Samardzic
Health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus from Montenegro: relationship to metabolic control
J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab, 29 (2016), pp. 663-668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2015-0420

Please cite this article as: Garcia LF, Manna TD, Passone CG, Oliveira LS. Translation and validation of Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 3.0 Diabetes Module (PedsQL™ 3.0 Diabetes Module) in Brazil-Portuguese language. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2018;94:680–8.

Study presented at Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, in order to obtain a Master's Degree in Pediatrics.

Copyright © 2018. Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria
Idiomas
Jornal de Pediatria (English Edition)

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Article options
Tools
en pt
Taxa de publicaçao Publication fee
Os artigos submetidos a partir de 1º de setembro de 2018, que forem aceitos para publicação no Jornal de Pediatria, estarão sujeitos a uma taxa para que tenham sua publicação garantida. O artigo aceito somente será publicado após a comprovação do pagamento da taxa de publicação. Ao submeterem o manuscrito a este jornal, os autores concordam com esses termos. A submissão dos manuscritos continua gratuita. Para mais informações, contate assessoria@jped.com.br. Articles submitted as of September 1, 2018, which are accepted for publication in the Jornal de Pediatria, will be subject to a fee to have their publication guaranteed. The accepted article will only be published after proof of the publication fee payment. By submitting the manuscript to this journal, the authors agree to these terms. Manuscript submission remains free of charge. For more information, contact assessoria@jped.com.br.
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.