Introduction: With increased CGM use in youth with T1D, it is timely to assess diabetes-specific family conflict related to CGM use. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of an updated DFC measure that includes CGM items.
Methods: Youth with T1D and their parents completed youth and parent versions, respectively, of the DFC that included 6 CGM-specific items (e.g., responding to CGM alarms) . Higher scores indicate more conflict. Item-to-total correlations and Cronbach’s α assessed internal consistency; correlations determined concurrent and predictive validity.
Results: The sample comprised 1youth (51% male) aged 13.2±2.7 years, with T1D duration 6.6±3.5 years. The final survey had 16 items after removal of those with outdated features, low response variability, or low item-to-total correlation. Cronbach’s α was .91 for youth and .81 for parents. Youth and parent scores were highly correlated (r=.48, p<.0001) . Higher DFC scores were associated with younger youth age (youth: r=-.23, p=.02; parent: r=-.27, p=.004) . Higher youth and parent DFC scores were also associated with adverse psychosocial outcomes: more depressive symptoms (youth: r=.38, p<.0001; parent: r=.35, p=.0002) , more diabetes burden (youth: r=.31, p=.0008; parent: r=.44, p<.0001) , more anxiety traits (youth: r=.23, p=.02; parent: r=.45; p<.0001) , lower youth general quality of life (QoL) (youth: r=-.30, p=.002; parent: r=-.45, p<.0001) and lower youth diabetes-specific QoL (youth: r=-.21, p=.02; parent: r=-.44, p<.0001) . Higher youth and parent DFC scores were associated with lower CGM satisfaction (youth: r=-.36, p<.0001; parent: r=-.28, p=.004) and with less CGM use at the time of DFC scale completion (youth: r=-.33, p=.0004; parent: r=-.31, p=.001) and 3 months later (youth: r=-.19, p=.05; parent: r=-.28, p=.003) .
Conclusion: The updated youth and parent DFC scales demonstrate strong psychometric properties and predictive validity and may be useful in clinical and research settings.
C.Chen: None. A.Shapira: None. L.K.Volkening: None. L.M.Laffel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompé, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc.
National Institutes of Health (P30DK036836, R01DK089349, T32DK007260)