Authors
1 Studennt Research Committee, Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Department of Midwifery, School of Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Alborz, Iran
2 Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Life Style Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Department of Nursing, School of Nursing, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Biostatistics, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Iranian Diabetes Society, Tehran, Iran,
5 Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Midwifery and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
A valid tool is of paramount importance in determining women’s sexual and reproductive health
status, meeting their health needs, and recognizing the effectiveness of some interventions. This
review study aimed to assess sexual and reproductive health dimensions tools in women with type
1 diabetes mellitus with regard to Consensus‑based Standards for the selection of health status
Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. In this review study, in addition to Iranian databases
(MagIran, Sid, Irandoc), non‑Iranian databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science)
and Google Scholar search engine were considered. The mentioned databases were searched
for articles in English and Persian published within 2000–2019, using the search strategy for each
database and Boolean operators along with appropriate keywords according to the MESH term.
Articles with nonresearcher‑made tools measuring the sexual and reproductive health concepts
and dimensions were included in the present study. Afterward, the psychometric properties of the
tools were assessed according to the COSMIN checklist. In the selected articles, there were 14
psychometrically valid tools to be assessed from 151 articles containing the sexual and reproductive
health dimensions; among which, seven tools were evaluated with regard to COSMIN. None of
the tools also had all the features noted in COSMIN. Moreover, all the concerned scales were not
interpretable and accountable; however, a majority of them had internal consistency and construct
validity. In this study, there was no valid and specific tool for measuring sexual‑reproductive health
status in this population group. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a valid tool according to the
dimensions and needs of specific reproductive health in type 1 diabetes.
Keywords
- Pulgaron ER, Delamater AM. Obesity and type 2 diabetes in
children: Epidemiology and treatment. Curr Diab Rep 2014;14:508.
2. Mayer‑Davis EJ, Lawrence JM, Dabelea D, Divers J, Isom S,
Dolan L, et al. Incidence trends of type 1 and type 2 diabetes
among youths 2002–2012. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1419‑29.
3. IFD. (2019). IDF Diabetes Atlas, 9th edn. Brussels, Belgium:
International Diabetes Federation 2019.
4. Hu G, Jousilahti P, Qiao Q, Katoh S, Tuomilehto J. Sex differences
in cardiovascular and total mortality among diabetic and
non‑diabetic individuals with or without history of myocardial
infarction. Diabetologia 2005;48:856‑61.
5. Stenhouse E. Effects of diabetes on women’s reproductive health.
Nurs Stand 2012;26:35‑40 - 6. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, World Health Organization. The Right to Health. Fact Sheet
no. 31. United Nations, Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
7. WHO.int [Internet].Sexual And Reproductive Health .[cited
2019 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/
reproductivehealth/en/.
8. UNFPA.org [Internet].Sexual And Reproductive Health .[cited
2019 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.unfpa.org/
reproductivehealth/en/.
9. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of
diabetes mellitus. Diabetes care. 2014 Jan 1;37(Supplement 1):S81‑90
10. Codner E, Cassorla F. Puberty and ovarian function in girls
with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Hormone Research in Paediatrics
2009;71:12‑21.
11. EnzlinP, MathieuC, Van den BruelA, Bosteels J, VanderschuerenD,
Demyttenaere K. Sexual dysfunction in women with type 1
diabetes: a controlled study. Diabetes care 2002 Apr 1;25 (4):672‑7.
12. Abell SK, Nankervis A, Khan KS, Teede HJ. Type 1 and type 2
diabetes preconception and in pregnancy: Health impacts,
influence of obesity and lifestyle, and principles of management.
Semin Reprod Med 2016;34:110‑20.
13. Masoumpoor A, Abbaszadeh A, Rassouli M, Alavimajd H. Critical
review of scales of incivility behaviors in nursing education. J Med
Ethics 2017;11:10.
14. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL,
Riphagen I, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of
systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments.
Qual Life Res 2009;18:313‑33.
15. Maiorino M, Bellastella G, Castaldo F, Petrizzo M, Giugliano D,
Esposito KJ. Sexual function in young women with type 1
diabetes: The METRO study. Journal of endocrinological
investigation 2017;40:169‑77.
16. Giraldi A, Kristensen E. Sexual dysfunction in women with
diabetes mellitus. J Sex Res 2010;47:199‑211.
17. LeksellJ, Funnell M, Sandberg G, Smide B, Wiklund G, Wikblad K.
Psychometric properties of the Swedish Diabetes Empowerment
Scale. Scand J Caring Sci 2007;21:247‑52.
18. Charron‑Prochownik D, Wang SL, Sereika SM, Kim Y, Janz NK.
A theory‑based reproductive health and diabetes instrument.
American journal of health behavior. 2006;30 (2):208‑20.
19. Najafi M, Mirhoseini SM, Lankarani MM, Assari S, Tavalaie SA.
Family satisfaction from point of view of diabetic and non‑diabetic
pares. J Iran J Diabetes Lipid Disord 2005;4:47.
20. Bultrini A, Carosa E, Colpi EM, Poccia G, Iannarelli R, Lembo D,
et al. Possible correlation between type 1 diabetes mellitus and
female sexual dysfunction: Case report and literature review.
J Sex Med 2004;1:337‑40.
21. Watkins K, Connell CM. Measurement of health‑related QOL in
diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:1109‑26.
22. Janz N, Herman W, Becker MJ. Pregnancy and diabetes interview
schedule. NIH/NINR 1992;5:P30.
23. Derogatis LR, Rosen R, Leiblum S, Burnett A, Heiman JJ,
Therapy M. The Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): Initial
validation of a standardized scale for assessment of sexually
related personal distress in women. Journal of Sex &Marital
Therapy2002;28:317‑30.
24. Kitiş Y, Erenel A, Gürcüoğlu E. Turkish adaptation of female
sexual distress scale‑R: A validity and reliability study. Sexuality
Culture 2019 Sep; 23:927‑42.
25. Rosen CB, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R,
Ferguson DR, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI):
A multidimensional self‑report instrument for the assessment of
female sexual function. J Sex Ther 2000;26:191‑208.
26. Rehman KU, Asif Mahmood M, Sheikh SS, Sultan T, Khan MA.
The female sexual function index (FSFI): Translation, validation,
and cross‑cultural adaptation of an urdu version “FSFI–U”. Sex
Med 2015;3:244‑50.
27. Locke H, Wallace KJ. Therapy f. Marital Adjustment Test. New
York: Brunner/Mazel; 1987. p. 46‑50.
28. Neijenhuijs KI, Hooghiemstra N, Holtmaat K, Aaronson NK,
Groenvold M, Holzner B, Terwee CB, Cuijpers P, Verdonck‑de
Leeuw IM. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)—a
systematic review of measurement properties. The journal of
sexual medicine 2019:16:640-60.
29. BoyerJG, Earp JA. The development of an instrument for assessing
the quality of life of people with diabetes. Diabetes‑39. Med Care
1997;35:440‑53.
30. Queiroz FA, Pace AE, Santos CB. Cross‑cultural adaptation and
validation of the instrument Diabetes‑39 (D‑39): Brazilian version
for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients – Stage 1. Rev Latino Am
Enferm 2009;17:708‑15.
31. Rust J, Golombok SJ. The Golombok‑Rust inventory of sexual
satisfaction (GRISS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology
1985;24:63‑4.
32. Lim R, Liong ML, Khan NA, Yuen KH. Validity and reliability of
the Golombok Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction in couples
with incontinent partners. Journal of sex & marital therapy
2017;43:142‑6.
33. Derogatis LR. The derogatis sexual functioning inventory.
Handbook of sexuality‑related measures 1998;269‑71.
34. Tsimtsiou Z, Papaharitou S, Nakopoulou E, Hatzichristou D,
Derogatis LR. Linguistic and cultural adaptation of the Derogatis
Sexual Functioning Inventory – Attitudes subscale in the Greek
language. Arch Hellenic Med 2007;24:363‑8.
35. Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 1976:15‑28.
36. Villeneuve L, Trudel G, Préville M, Dargis L, Boyer R,
Bégin J. Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A validation study among
older French‑Canadians living in relationships. Can J Aging 2015;
34:26‑35.
37. Locke HJ, Wallace KM, Living F. Short marital‑adjustment and
prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and family
living 1959;21:251‑5.
38. Janz NK, Herman WH, Becker MP, Charron‑Prochownik D,
Shayna VL, Lesnick TG, et al. Diabetes and pregnancy: Factors
associated with seeking pre‑conception care. Diabetes care
1995;18:157‑65.
39. Nazari S, Foroughan M, Mohammadi Shahbolaghi F, Rassouli M,
Sadegh Moghadam L, Farhadi A, Sadeghi NK. Analysis of the
psychometric properties of the perceived social support scales in
older adults. Iranian Journal of Ageing 2016 15;10:210‑8.
40. MokkinkLB, PrinsenC, PatrickDL, AlonsoJ, BouterLM, de VetHC,
Terwee CB, Mokkink L. COSMIN methodology for systematic
reviews of patient‑reported outcome measures (PROMs). User
manual 2018;78:1.
41. Burns N, Grove SK. Understanding nursing research‑eBook:
Building an evidence‑based practice. Elsevier Health Sciences
2010 Sep 20
42. Rasouli M, Yaghmaei F, Alavi MH. Psychometric properties of
“Hopefulness Scale for Adolescents in Iranian Institutionalized
Adolescents”. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical
Psychology 2009;15:25‑32.
)