We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
Reexamining the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey for Parents of Young Children in a Sample of Children Using Insulin Pumps.
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2017 Februrary
BACKGROUND: We update the psychometric properties of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Parents of Young Children (HFS-PYC), a 26-item measure of parents' hypoglycemia fear for young children using an insulin pump.
METHODS: We combined three similar datasets for the analyses. The data analyzed included parents' responses to the HFS-PYC and a demographic form. For a subset of children (n = 91), we also analyzed self-monitoring of blood glucose data. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the measure's original factor structure. Additional analyses examined reliability and validity of a revised HFS-PYC for parents of young children using pumps.
RESULTS: We analyzed data from 116 parents (93% mothers). Mean child age and HbA1c were 5.2 ± 1.3 years and 8.2% ± 1.1%, respectively. CFA identified a 22-item two-factor solution (χ2 (208, n = 116) = 368.688, P < 0.001, root mean square error of approximation = 0.08, comparative fit index = 0.94, and Tucker-Lewis index = 0.93) with factors corresponding to the original subscales: worry and behavior. The revised subscales demonstrated at least adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.65). Correlations revealed significant negative associations between current HFS-PYC worry scores and children's mean daily blood glucose and percent of very high glucose levels per day, suggesting less fear among parents of young children with elevated glycemic levels. In addition, there was a positive association with the percent of glucose levels in target, suggesting greater hypoglycemia fear among parents of children who have better control.
CONCLUSIONS: Results provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a reduced 22-item HFS-PYC for parents of children using insulin pumps.
METHODS: We combined three similar datasets for the analyses. The data analyzed included parents' responses to the HFS-PYC and a demographic form. For a subset of children (n = 91), we also analyzed self-monitoring of blood glucose data. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the measure's original factor structure. Additional analyses examined reliability and validity of a revised HFS-PYC for parents of young children using pumps.
RESULTS: We analyzed data from 116 parents (93% mothers). Mean child age and HbA1c were 5.2 ± 1.3 years and 8.2% ± 1.1%, respectively. CFA identified a 22-item two-factor solution (χ2 (208, n = 116) = 368.688, P < 0.001, root mean square error of approximation = 0.08, comparative fit index = 0.94, and Tucker-Lewis index = 0.93) with factors corresponding to the original subscales: worry and behavior. The revised subscales demonstrated at least adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.65). Correlations revealed significant negative associations between current HFS-PYC worry scores and children's mean daily blood glucose and percent of very high glucose levels per day, suggesting less fear among parents of young children with elevated glycemic levels. In addition, there was a positive association with the percent of glucose levels in target, suggesting greater hypoglycemia fear among parents of children who have better control.
CONCLUSIONS: Results provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a reduced 22-item HFS-PYC for parents of children using insulin pumps.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app