↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and enablers to the delivery of psychological care in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in China: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Barriers and enablers to the delivery of psychological care in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in China: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1358-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Chapman, Hui Yang, Shane A Thomas, Kendall Searle, Colette Browning

Abstract

China has the largest number of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases globally and individuals with T2DM have an increased risk of developing mental health disorders and functional problems. Despite guidelines recommending that psychological care be delivered in conjunction with standard T2DM care; psychological care is not routinely delivered in China. Community Health Centre (CHC) doctors play a key role in the management of patients with T2DM in China. Understanding the behavioural determinants of CHC doctors in the implementation of psychological care recommendations allows for the design of targeted and culturally appropriate interventions. As such, this study aimed to examine barriers and enablers to the delivery of psychological care to patients with T2DM from the perspective of CHC doctors in China. Two focus groups were conducted with 23 CHC doctors from Shenzhen, China. The discussion guide applied the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) that examines current practice and identifies key barriers and enablers perceived to influence practice. Focus groups were conducted with an interpreter, and were digitally recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently coded transcripts into pre-defined themes using deductive thematic analysis. Barriers and enablers perceived by doctors as being relevant to the delivery of psychological care for patients with T2DM were primarily categorised within eight TDF domains. Key barriers included: CHC doctors' knowledge and skills; time constraints; and absence of financial incentives. Other barriers included: societal perception that treating psychological aspects of health is less important than physical health; lack of opinion leaders; doctors' intentional disregard of psychological care; and doubts regarding the efficacy of psychological care. In contrast, perceived enablers included: training of CHC doctors in psychological skills; identification of afternoon/evening clinic times when recommendations could be implemented; introduction of financial incentives; and the creation of a professional role (e.g. diabetes educator), that could implement psychological care recommendations to patients with T2DM. The utilisation of the TDF allowed for the comprehensive understanding of barriers and enablers to the implementation of psychological care recommendations for patients with T2DM, and consequently, has given direction to future interventions strategies aimed at improving the implementation of such recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 28 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 31 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,605
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,011
of 303,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#79
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 303,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.