Diabetes Self-Management and Glycemic Control in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis with Corrected DSMQ Scoring.
4 affiliations
- 1Doctoral School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of Oradea, 1 University Street, 410087 Oradea, Romania.
- 2Department of Medical Disciplines, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 410073 Oradea, Romania.
- 3Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 1 University Street, 410087 Oradea, Romania.
- 4Department of Preclinical Disciplines, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 410028 Oradea, Romania.
Abstract
Background
Accurate scoring is essential when patient-reported self-management instruments are related to biochemical outcomes. The principal contribution of this study was to reconstruct and audit Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) scores from item-level data before reassessing their cross-sectional association with glycemic control.Methods
We performed a cross-sectional secondary analysis of a clinical database of adults with type 2 diabetes. One non-patient header row was removed. Because 12 observation-sheet identifiers occurred twice and visit dates were unavailable, all 24 records carrying repeated identifiers were excluded from the prespecified primary analysis, leaving 238 records. Negatively keyed DSMQ items were reverse-scored, and total and subscale scores were transformed to a 0-10 scale according to the original algorithm. Associations with HbA1c were assessed using Spearman correlation, exploratory ROC analysis, and multivariable linear regression with HC3 robust standard errors.Results
HbA1c was available for 237 records; mean age was 64.18 years (SD 11.14), 56.1% of records with valid sex coding were female, and mean HbA1c was 7.81% (SD 1.94). The corrected DSMQ total score was 5.19 (SD 2.36). DSMQ total score correlated inversely with HbA1c (ρ = -0.467, bootstrap 95% CI -0.572 to -0.350; p < 0.001). In the adjusted model (n = 236), each one-point higher DSMQ total score was associated with a 0.254 percentage-point lower HbA1c (regression coefficient = -0.254, 95% CI -0.344 to -0.163; p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses using all records or first/last repeated-record rules produced similar estimates.Conclusions
Correctly scored DSMQ results showed a moderate, independent cross-sectional association with HbA1c. The corrected analysis did not demonstrate excellent discrimination, and the cross-sectional data cannot support causal or predictive claims. Prospective studies with verified unique participants and clearly documented data provenance are needed.
Related
- The correlation between risk perception and glycemic management decision-making behavior in pregnant women with gestational diabetes: a cross-sectional study
- Five-Year Glycemic Trends in a Remote Diabetes Management Program (RDMP): Contributions of Program Engagement and Evolving Pharmacotherapy Adoption and Adherence
- Chronic Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Glycemic Control in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study
- Glycemic Dynamics and Management Strategies in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes During Ramadan: A Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Narrative Review.
- Phase angle and triglyceride-glucose index as biomarkers of glycemic control, body composition and cardiovascular risk in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study
BibTeX
@article{popovici2026diabetes,
title = {{Diabetes Self-Management and Glycemic Control in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis with Corrected DSMQ Scoring.}},
author = {Paula-Alexandra Popovici and Andreea Diana Igna and Bianca-Lăcrimioara Petca and Corina Cinezan and Timea Claudia Ghitea and Mihaela Simona Popoviciu},
journal = {Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/diseases14100375},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930002},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Diabetes Self-Management and Glycemic Control in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis with Corrected DSMQ Scoring.
AU - Paula-Alexandra Popovici
AU - Andreea Diana Igna
AU - Bianca-Lăcrimioara Petca
AU - Corina Cinezan
AU - Timea Claudia Ghitea
AU - Mihaela Simona Popoviciu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/12
JO - Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)
DO - 10.3390/diseases14100375
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930002
AB - Background Accurate scoring is essential when patient-reported self-management instruments are related to biochemical outcomes. The principal contribution of this study was to reconstruct and audit Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) scores from item-level data before reassessing their cross-sectional association with glycemic control.Methods We performed a cross-sectional secondary analysis of a clinical database of adults with type 2 diabetes. One non-patient header row was removed. Because 12 observation-sheet identifiers occurred twice and visit dates were unavailable, all 24 records carrying repeated identifiers were excluded from the prespecified primary analysis, leaving 238 records. Negatively keyed DSMQ items were reverse-scored, and total and subscale scores were transformed to a 0-10 scale according to the original algorithm. Associations with HbA1c were assessed using Spearman correlation, exploratory ROC analysis, and multivariable linear regression with HC3 robust standard errors.Results HbA1c was available for 237 records; mean age was 64.18 years (SD 11.14), 56.1% of records with valid sex coding were female, and mean HbA1c was 7.81% (SD 1.94). The corrected DSMQ total score was 5.19 (SD 2.36). DSMQ total score correlated inversely with HbA1c (ρ = -0.467, bootstrap 95% CI -0.572 to -0.350; p < 0.001). In the adjusted model (n = 236), each one-point higher DSMQ total score was associated with a 0.254 percentage-point lower HbA1c (regression coefficient = -0.254, 95% CI -0.344 to -0.163; p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses using all records or first/last repeated-record rules produced similar estimates.Conclusions Correctly scored DSMQ results showed a moderate, independent cross-sectional association with HbA1c. The corrected analysis did not demonstrate excellent discrimination, and the cross-sectional data cannot support causal or predictive claims. Prospective studies with verified unique participants and clearly documented data provenance are needed.
SN - 2079-9721
ER -