Search

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.

The EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) are commonly used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for breast cancer. This study assesses and compares the internal responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in Dutch breast cancer patients during the first year post-surgery. Women diagnosed with breast cancer who completed the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 pre-operatively (T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months post-surgery (T12) were included. Mean differences of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 between baseline and 6 months (delta 1) and between baseline and 12 months post-surgery (delta 2) were calculated and compared against the respective minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 0.08 and 5. Internal responsiveness was assessed using effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) for both deltas. In total, 333 breast cancer patients were included. Delta 1 and delta 2 for the EQ-5D-5L index and most scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 were below the MCID. The internal responsiveness for both PROMs was small (ES and SRM < 0.5), with greater internal responsiveness for delta 1 compared to delta 2. The EQ-5D-5L index showed greater internal responsiveness than the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Quality of Life scale and summary score. These findings are valuable for the interpretation of both PROMs in Dutch breast cancer research and clinical care.