↓ Skip to main content

Validity and reliability of a Malay version of the brief illness perception questionnaire for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity and reliability of a Malay version of the brief illness perception questionnaire for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0394-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boon-How Chew, Rimke C. Vos, Monique Heijmans, Sazlina Shariff-Ghazali, Aaron Fernandez, Guy E. H. M. Rutten

Abstract

Illness perceptions involve the personal beliefs that patients have about their illness and may influence health behaviours considerably. Since an instrument to measure these perceptions for Malay population in Malaysia is lacking, we translated and examined the psychometric properties of the Malay version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (MBIPQ) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The MBIPQ has nine items, all use a 0-10 response scale, except the ninth item about causal factors, which is an open-ended item. A standard procedure was used to translate and adapt the English BIPQ into Malay language. Construct validity was examined comparing item scores and scores on the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale, the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-brief, the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale, HbA1c and the presence of complications. In addition, 2-week and 4-week test-retest reliability were studied. A total of 312 patients completed the MBIPQ. Out of this, 97 and 215 patients completed the 2- or 4-weeks test-retest reliability questionnaire, respectively. Moderate inter-items correlations were observed between illness perception dimensions (r = -0.31 to 0.53). MBIPQ items showed the expected correlations with self-efficacy (r = 0.35), medication adherence (r = 0.29), quality of life (r = -0.17 to 0.31) and depressive symptoms (r = -0.18 to 0.21). People with severe diabetes-related distress also were more concern (t-test = 4.01, p < 0.001) and experienced lower personal control (t-test = 2.07, p = 0.031). People with any diabetes-related complication perceived the consequences as more serious (t-test = 2.04, p = 0.044). The 2-week and 4-week test-retest reliabilities varied between ICCagreement 0.39 to 0.70 and 0.58 to 0.78, respectively. The psychometric properties of items in the MBIPQ are moderate. The MBIPQ showed good cross-cultural validity and moderate construct validity. Test-retest reliability was moderate. Despite the moderate psychometric properties, the MBIPQ may be useful in clinical practice as it is a useful instrument to elicit and communicate on patient's personal thoughts and feelings. Future research is needed to establish its responsiveness and predictive validity. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730754 registered on March 29, 2016; NCT02730078 registered on March 29, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 160 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Lecturer 12 8%
Researcher 10 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 58 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Psychology 15 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 60 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,441,465
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,890
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,078
of 317,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#38
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.