**3. Data analysis**

126 Type 1 Diabetes – Complications, Pathogenesis, and Alternative Treatments

recommendations regarding self care that includes four subscales: blood glucose regulation, insulin and food regulation, exercise and emergency precautions. *Higher results indicate more adherence.* Only the full scale was considered in the present study. Internal consistency in the

**Diabetes Family Behaviour Scale** – DFBS – McKelvey et al., (1993), (Portuguese version of Almeida & Pereira (in press). DFBS is a 47 items questionnaire that assesses family support given to the adolescent in diabetes self care. It is composed of two subscales: Guidance-Control *(*15 items) and Warmth-Caring (15 items). The remaining 17 items do not belong to any of the subscales. *High results indicate less social support.* Internal consistency, in the original version, was .86, .81 and .79 for the full scale, guidance-control and warmth-caring, respectively. The Portuguese version showed an alpha of .91 (total scale), .76 (guidance-control) and .81 (warmth-caring.). In this study only the full scale

**Diabetes Quality of Life** – DQoL - Ingersoll & Marrero (1991), (Portuguese version of Almeida & Pereira (2008). DQol is a 52 items questionnaire that assesses quality of life in patients with diabetes that includes three subscales: impact of diabetes (23 items); worries towards diabetes (11 items) and satisfaction (towards treatment: 7 items; towards life in general: 10 items) and one item that assesses health and quality of life. Higher results indicate lower quality of life. In the original version, the alpha for the total subscale was .92, followed by .86 (satisfaction), .85 (impact of diabetes) and .82 (worries towards diabetes). In this sample alphas were .89 (total scale), .71 (impact on diabetes), .82 (worries towards diabetes) and .87 (satisfaction). All the subscales were considered in the

**School Support** (Pereira & Almeida, 2009). School Support is a 6 items questionnaire that measures school support (e.g. healthy snacks available in cafeteria) and peer support regarding daily diabetes' management (e.g. feeling supported by fiends regarding diabetes).

**Family Assessment Device** – FAD – Epstein et al., (1983), (Portuguese version provided by Ryan et al., 2005). It´s a 60 items questionnaire distributed by seven subscales: Problems Solving, Communication, Roles, Affective Responsiveness; Affective Involvement; Behavior control and General Functioning. *Higher results indicate low family functioning.* In the original version, Epstein, Baldwin and Bishop (1983) found the following results: Problem solving: .74; Communication: .75; Roles: .72; Affective responsiveness: .83; Affective involvement: .78; Behavior Control: .72 and General Functioning: .92. Only the full scale was used in the

**Coping Health Inventory for Parents** – CHIP – McCubbin et al., (1983), (Portuguese version of Pereira & Almeida, 2001). CHIP is a 45 items questionnaire that measures parents' response to management of family life when they have a child who is seriously and/or chronically ill. It includes three subscales: 1) Maintaining family integration, cooperation and an optimist definition of the situation; 2) Maintaining social support, selfesteem and psychological stability; and 3) Understanding the medical situation through communication with other parents and consultation with medical staff. *Higher results indicate better coping*. In the original version, the alpha for the first and second subscale was .79 and .71 for the third. In this sample, alphas were: .65 for the first subscale, .79 for

*Higher results indicate more school support. T*he alpha in this sample was .81.

present study and the alpha, in the present sample, was .93.

the second and .71 for the last subscale.

original version was .80 and in this sample was .73.

was considered (alpha of .75).

hypothesis testing.

**2.3.3 Parent** 

First, descriptive statistics were performed to find the rate of adherence to self-care, metabolic control and quality of life. Hierarchical regression analyses were later performed to identify the best predictors of adherence to self-care, metabolic control and quality of life. Due to the size of the sample, regression analysis were first performed taking in consideration all variables ,except illness perceptions, and later including only them in the regression equation. The first regression was performed using the method *enter* since the selection of variables was based on previous research. The second regression, due to its exploratory nature, was performed using the stepwise method.

For both regressions, the variables considered in the first step were socio-demographic and clinical variables i.e. gender of the adolescent, duration of disease and values of glycated hemoglobin. In the first regression analysis, the second step included adolescents' psychosocial variables i.e. family support, quality of life, adherence and school support. The third step included family variables i.e. family functioning and coping. In the second regression analysis, the second step included adolescents' illness perceptions and the third step included family member's illness perceptions.
