↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to effective management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: qualitative systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
177 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
462 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to effective management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: qualitative systematic review
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, January 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x683509
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Rushforth, Carolyn McCrorie, Liz Glidewell, Eleanor Midgley, Robbie Foy

Abstract

Despite the availability of evidence-based guidance, many patients with type 2 diabetes do not achieve treatment goals. To guide quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes by synthesising qualitative evidence on primary care physicians' and nurses' perceived influences on care. Systematic review of qualitative studies with findings organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and ASSIA from 1980 until March 2014. Studies included were English-language qualitative studies in primary care of physicians' or nurses' perceived influences on treatment goals for type 2 diabetes. A total of 32 studies were included: 17 address general diabetes care, 11 glycaemic control, three blood pressure, and one cholesterol control. Clinicians struggle to meet evolving treatment targets within limited time and resources, and are frustrated with resulting compromises. They lack confidence in knowledge of guidelines and skills, notably initiating insulin and facilitating patient behaviour change. Changing professional boundaries have resulted in uncertainty about where clinical responsibility resides. Accounts are often couched in emotional terms, especially frustrations over patient compliance and anxieties about treatment intensification. Although resources are important, many barriers to improving care are amenable to behaviour change strategies. Improvement strategies need to account for differences between clinical targets and consider tailored rather than 'one size fits all' approaches. Training targeting knowledge is necessary but insufficient to bring about major change; approaches to improve diabetes care need to delineate roles and responsibilities, and address clinicians' skills and emotions around treatment intensification and facilitation of patient behaviour change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 462 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 460 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 15%
Student > Bachelor 47 10%
Researcher 43 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 9%
Student > Postgraduate 35 8%
Other 102 22%
Unknown 126 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 17%
Unspecified 21 5%
Social Sciences 20 4%
Psychology 19 4%
Other 71 15%
Unknown 142 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,954,365
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,627
of 4,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,964
of 402,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#37
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.