Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity (Nov 2022)

Development of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Towards Nasal versus Autoinjector Glucagon Delivery Devices for Treatment of Severe Hypoglycemia

  • Bajpai SK,
  • Cambron-Mellott MJ,
  • Will O,
  • Poon JL,
  • Wang Q,
  • Mitchell BD,
  • Peck EY,
  • Babrowicz J,
  • Raibulet NK,
  • Child CJ,
  • Beusterien K

Journal volume & issue
Vol. Volume 15
pp. 3601 – 3615

Abstract

Read online

Sanjay K Bajpai,1 M Janelle Cambron-Mellott,2 Oliver Will,2 Jiat-Ling Poon,1 Qianqian Wang,1 Beth D Mitchell,1 Eugenia Y Peck,2 Jane Babrowicz,2 Nedina K Raibulet,1 Christopher J Child,1 Kathleen Beusterien2 1Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 2Cerner Enviza, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Sanjay K Bajpai, Eli Lilly & Company, 893 S Delaware St, Indianapolis, IN, 46225, USA, Tel +1 317 931 9828, Email [email protected]: For individuals managing diabetes, the administration of glucagon for severe hypoglycemia can be lifesaving, yet, until recently, there were no easy-to-use devices for these stressful emergencies. New products have emerged to meet this need, including nasal glucagon (NG) and auto-injector glucagon (AI). This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a new measure, the Glucagon Device Attitudes Questionnaire (GDAQ), in assessing attitudes toward NG and AI from the perspectives of persons with diabetes on insulin (PWDs), caregivers, and acquaintances.Methods: Developed based on qualitative research, the GDAQ consists of 38 rating items for each device and 16 direct-elicitation of attitudes of device relative to each other. It was administered to participants via a cross-sectional online survey. Twenty-six rating items were included in principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Items comprising each factor were averaged to form scales. Additionally, 12 direct elicitation items were averaged to form an overall “Attitudes” scale. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were provided for the rating items not included in the factor analysis.Results: A total of 405 PWDs, 313 caregivers, and 305 acquaintances participated. Three factors were identified: “Prepared and Protected” (7 items), “Hesitation” (12 items), and “Device Perceptions by Others” (7 items); factor loadings ranged from 0.13 to 0.92, 0.50 to 0.89, and 0.16 to 0.92, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the four scales ranged from 0.76 to 0.96. Correlations of the scales with their global item ranged from 0.30 to 0.90. The items outside of the factor analysis showed good distribution in responses and differentiation between the two devices.Discussion: This study supports the validity and reliability of the GDAQ, which successfully conceptualizes attitudes towards devices for administering glucagon among different respondent groups. Use of the GDAQ can help guide the development and testing of new glucagon drug/device combinations.Keywords: diabetes, severe hypoglycemic events, glucagon delivery device, patient attitudes

Keywords