Introduction: Despite the importance of perceived barriers against self-care in diabetic patients, the role of this factor is rarely addressed in the improvement of self-care behaviors of Iranian patients. The lack of appropriate instruments that fit demographic properties of Iranian society is one reason. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the scale of perceived barriers to self-care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. 

Methods: This cross-sectional study conducted on 400 patients with type 2 diabetes who were covered by the health centers in Isfahan (Iran) in 2015. A 22-item, researcher-made instrument was designed; the face and content validities of the instrument were examined through obtaining the opinions of an expert panel before administering the instrument in the study. Also, the exploratory factor analysis was used to investigate the instrument's validity. Cronbach's alpha was employed to measure its internal consistency (reliability). To examine the validity of the final scale, the mean scores of perceived barriers in patients with appropriate and inappropriate self-care behaviors were compared.

Results: The research sample was comprised of 240 women (60%) and 160 men (40%). The mean value of the content validity index was 0.84. The results of factor analysis confirmed the validity of the 11 items and 3 factors of the developed scale. The factor loading ranged from 0.46 to 0.78. These three factors together explained 40.28% of the total variance. The overall reliability coefficient of the instrument was 0.79, ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 for three factors.

Conclusion: According to the results, the developed scale was a valid and reliable instrument for examining the barriers perceived by the patients. The findings of this research can help health policy makers in planning to facilitate the self-care behaviors as the most vital factor in diabetes control.


Keywords: diabetes mellitus, self-care, perceived barriers, validity, reliability
» HTML Fulltext    » PDF Fulltext    » doi: 10.19082/1486

Current Issue

July-September 2019 (Volume 11, Issue 3)


Previous Issue

In the second issue of the journal Electronic Physician for 2019, we have several papers including four Randomized Controlled Trials, a model development study, a case report, an editorial, a letter to editor (LTE), and several original research including two studies with qualitative approach. Authors of this issue are from nine countries: Iran, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, India, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Jordan. Read more...


The 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) is to be held on June 2-5, 2019 in Hong Kong.

The WCRI is the largest and most significant international conference on research integrity. Since the first conference in Lisbon in 2007, it has given researchers, teachers, funding agencies, government officials, journal editors, senior administrators, and research students opportunities to share experiences and to discuss and promote integrity in research. Read more:


TDR Clinical Research and Development Fellowships

Call for applications

Deadline for submission: 7 March 2019, 16:00 (GMT)

TDR provides fellowships for early- to mid-career researchers and clinical trial staff (e.g. clinicians, pharmacists, medical statisticians, data managers, other health researchers) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to learn how to conduct clinical trials. Read more:

Meta-Analysis Workshops in New York, USA, and London, UK, in April and May 2019

Don't miss this exceptional opportunity to learn how to perform and report a Meta-analysis correctly. Two Meta-analysis workshops are organized in April and May 2019 by Dr. Michael Borenstein in New York, USA (April 08-10, 2019) and London, UK (May 27-29).

About the Instructor

Dr. Michael Borenstein, one of the authors of Introduction to Meta-Analysis, is widely recognized for his ability to make statistical concepts accessible to researchers as well as to statisticians. He has lectured widely on meta-analysis, including at the NIH, CDC, and FDA. Read more: