OBJECTIVES: There is a growing emphasis on the perspective of individuals living with diabetes and the need for a more person-centred diabetes care. At present, the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) lacks patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on the perspective of the patient. As a basis for a new PROM, the aim of this study was to describe important aspects in life for adult individuals with diabetes.

DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews analysed using content analysis.

SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient clinics and primary healthcare clinics in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS: 29 adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) (n=15) and type 2 DM (n=14).

INCLUSION CRITERIA: Swedish adults (≥18 years) living with type 1 DM or type 2 DM (duration ≥5 years) able to describe their situation in Swedish. Purposive sampling generated heterogeneous characteristics.

RESULTS: To live a good life with diabetes is demanding for the individual, but experienced barriers can be eased by support from others in the personal sphere, and by professional support from diabetes care. Diabetes care was a crucial resource to nurture the individual's ability and knowledge to manage diabetes, and to facilitate life with diabetes by supplying support, guidance, medical treatment and technical devices tailored to individual needs. The analysis resulted in the overarching theme 'To live a good life with diabetes' constituting the two main categories 'How I feel and how things are going with my diabetes' and 'Support from diabetes care in managing diabetes' including five different categories.

CONCLUSIONS: Common aspects were identified including the experience of living with diabetes and support from diabetes care. These will be used to establish a basis for a tailored PROM for the NDR.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and evaluation of the content and face validity and test-retest reliability of a disease-specific questionnaire that measures patient-reported outcomes and experiences for the Swedish National Diabetes Register for adult patients who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

METHODS: In this methodological study, a questionnaire was developed over four phases using an iterative process. Expert reviews and cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate content and face validity, and a postal survey was administered to evaluate test-retest reliability.

RESULTS: The expert reviews and cognitive interviews found the disease-specific questionnaire to be understandable, with relevant content and value for diabetes care. An item-level content validity index ranged from 0.6-1.0 and a scale content validity/average ranged from 0.7-1.0. The fourth version, with 33 items, two main parts and seven dimensions, was answered by 972 adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (response rate 61%). Weighted Kappa values ranged from 0.31-0.78 for type 1 diabetes and 0.27-0.74 for type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the initial development of a disease-specific questionnaire in conjunction with the NDR. Content and face validity were confirmed and test-retest reliability was satisfactory.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With the development of this questionnaire, the NDR becomes a clinical tool that contributes to further understanding the perspectives of adult individuals with diabetes.

Background: Health-related quality of life and glycaemic control are some of the central outcomes in clinical diabetes care and research. The purpose of this study was to describe the health-related quality of life and assess its association with glycaemic control in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a nationwide setting.

Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, people with type 1 (n = 2479) and type 2 diabetes (n = 2469) were selected at random without replacement from the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Eligibility criteria were being aged 18–80 years with at least one registered test of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) the last 12 months. The generic 36- item Short Form version 2 (SF-36v2) was answered by 1373 (55.4%) people with type 1 diabetes and 1353 (54.8%) with type 2 diabetes.

Results: Correlation analyses showed weak correlations between scores on the SF-36v2 and glycaemic control for both diabetes types. After the participants were divided into three groups based on their levels of HbA1c, multivariate regression analyses adjusted for demographics, other risk factors and diabetes complications showed that among participants with type 1 diabetes, the high-risk group (≥70 mmol/mol/8.6%) had statistically significantly lower means in five out of eight domains of the SF-36v2 and the mental component summary measure, as compared with the well-controlled group (< 52 mmol/mol/6.9%). Among the participants with type 2 diabetes, the high-risk group had the lowest statistically significantly means in seven domains and both summary measures.

Conclusions: Among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, adults with high-risk HbA1c levels have lower levels of health-related quality of life in most but not all domains of the SF-36v2. This finding was not explained by demographics, other risk factors, or diabetes complications. The weak individual-level correlations between HRQOL scores and levels of glycaemic control argues for the need to not focus exclusively on either HbA1c levels or HRQOL scores but rather on both because both are important parts of a complex, life-long, challenging condition.