Search

Objective: Despite improvements in diabetes monitoring and treatment many patients do not achieve treatment goals. Person-centred approaches have been proposed. However, their practical implementation lags. One barrier is uncertainty about which person-reported outcomes (PROs) should be considered to add the most value. We sought to identify PROs that may be prioritised., Methods: We used data from a multi-stakeholder Delphi study aimed at developing a person-centred diabetes outcome set and analysed which PROs patients considered important for regular monitoring but healthcare providers less so. Linear regression analyses tested whether belonging to either stakeholder group would predict the importance attributed to an outcome., Results: We found disagreement between patients and healthcare providers on eleven PROs. Stakeholder group predicted perceived importance for ten: self-management behaviours (including performance, perceived importance, motivation, and capacity), sleep quality, diabetes symptoms, screening visit attendance, health status, lifestyle behaviours, and side effects., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that, according to patients' preferences, self-management behaviours, health status and sleep are currently not adequately considered in diabetes management, compromising person-centred care., Practical Implications: This study suggests that prioritising these PROs can facilitate the implementation of more person-centred diabetes monitoring which may support better-informed treatment decisions to achieve treatment goals., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diabetes increases the risk of psychosocial health problems. Person-centred psychosocial care is therefore advocated. However, several barriers to implementation exist, including uncertainty about how to approach psychosocial problems in consultations., Objective: We aimed to explore which psychosocial outcomes patients and healthcare professionals consider important and whether certain characteristics are associated with this. We propose strategies for facilitating psychosocial diabetes care on this basis., Methods: The results of an international Delphi study aimed at achieving multi-stakeholder consensus on a diabetes outcome set were analysed. We compared the importance ratings of the two stakeholder groups for each psychosocial outcome. A multivariable linear regression analysis tested whether certain characteristics would predict the importance attributed to outcomes that were not generally considered important., Findings: Patients and healthcare professionals agreed on the importance of regularly assessing psychological well-being, diabetes distress and diabetes-specific quality of life, while they regarded it as less important to monitor depression, anxiety, eating problems, social support and sexual health. Being a woman, younger and living with type 1 diabetes were associated with considering it important to assess eating problems., Conclusions: We propose two psychosocial care pathways that reflect the outcome preferences of patients and healthcare providers. They follow a stepped approach, starting with the assessment of psychological well-being and quality of life and proceeding from there., Clinical Implications: Adopting this approach can facilitate the implementation of person-centred psychosocial diabetes care by reducing the burden and making psychosocial issues more accessible. This approach should be tested for feasibility, safety and effectiveness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Standardised person‐reported outcomes (PRO) data can contextualise clinical outcomes enabling precision diabetes monitoring and care. Comprehensive outcome sets can guide this process, but their implementation in routine diabetes care has remained challenging and unsuccessful at international level. We aimed to address this by developing a person‐centred outcome set for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, using a methodology with prospects for increased implementability and sustainability in international health settings. Methods: We used a three‐round questionnaire‐based Delphi study to reach consensus on the outcome set. We invited key stakeholders from 19 countries via purposive snowball sampling, namely people with diabetes (N = 94), healthcare professionals (N = 65), industry (N = 22) and health authorities (N = 3), to vote on the relevance and measurement frequency of 64 previously identified clinical and person‐reported outcomes. Subsequent consensus meetings concluded the study. Results: The list of preliminary outcomes was shortlisted via the consensus process to 46 outcomes (27 clinical outcomes and 19 PROs). Two main collection times were recommended: (1) linked to a medical visit (e.g. diabetes‐specific well‐being, symptoms and psychological health) and (2) annually (e.g. clinical data, general well‐being and diabetes self management‐related outcomes). Conclusions: PROs are often considered in a non‐standardised way in routine diabetes care. We propose a person‐centred outcome set for diabetes, specifically considering psychosocial and behavioural aspects, which was agreed by four international key stakeholder groups. It guides standardised collection of meaningful outcomes at scale, supporting individual and population level healthcare decision making. It will be implemented and tested in Europe as part of the H2O project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]