S Vluggen1, C Hoving2, N C Schaper3, H de Vries4. 1. Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: stan.vluggen@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.hoving@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 3. Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: n.schaper@mumc.nl. 4. Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hein.devries@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite well-known beneficial effects, adherence to core elements of diabetes treatment is suboptimal. This study, conducted in the Netherlands, aimed to explore if and how treatment adherence success factors are applied in diabetes consultations, and to explore salient personal beliefs about type 2 diabetes treatment including both healthy lifestyle adaptations and pharmacotherapy. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews among nine Dutch healthcare providers predominantly involved in diabetes management and 19 Dutch type 2 diabetes patients. Data was systematically analysed through deductive coding analysis using Nvivo. RESULTS: Most patients visited their consultations unprepared. Patients did not or vaguely experience goal-setting in consultations, whereas healthcare providers indicated to set treatment goals. Shared-decision making was applied, however patients were rather passive collaborators as mostly healthcare providers were in charge of making treatment decisions. Despite suboptimal treatment adherence, many advantages and few disadvantages of treatment strategies were reported. Adherence self-efficacy was lower in situations outside daily routine. CONCLUSION: Treatment adherence success factors are not optimally applied, and in particular treatment adherence self-efficacy could be improved. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The application of treatment adherence success factors in consultations could be improved, and personal beliefs should be addressed to improve treatment adherence and optimize counselling.
OBJECTIVE: Despite well-known beneficial effects, adherence to core elements of diabetes treatment is suboptimal. This study, conducted in the Netherlands, aimed to explore if and how treatment adherence success factors are applied in diabetes consultations, and to explore salient personal beliefs about type 2 diabetes treatment including both healthy lifestyle adaptations and pharmacotherapy. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews among nine Dutch healthcare providers predominantly involved in diabetes management and 19 Dutch type 2 diabetespatients. Data was systematically analysed through deductive coding analysis using Nvivo. RESULTS: Most patients visited their consultations unprepared. Patients did not or vaguely experience goal-setting in consultations, whereas healthcare providers indicated to set treatment goals. Shared-decision making was applied, however patients were rather passive collaborators as mostly healthcare providers were in charge of making treatment decisions. Despite suboptimal treatment adherence, many advantages and few disadvantages of treatment strategies were reported. Adherence self-efficacy was lower in situations outside daily routine. CONCLUSION: Treatment adherence success factors are not optimally applied, and in particular treatment adherence self-efficacy could be improved. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The application of treatment adherence success factors in consultations could be improved, and personal beliefs should be addressed to improve treatment adherence and optimize counselling.
Authors: Ritch Te Kampe; Annelies Boonen; Tim L Jansen; Jan Mathis Elling; Marcel Flendrie; Yvonne van Eijk-Hustings; Matthijs Janssen; Caroline van Durme; Hein de Vries Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: M Jongebloed-Westra; C Bode; B E Bente; J M de Jonge; P M Ten Klooster; H Koffijberg; S H Exterkate; J J van Netten; J E W C van Gemert-Pijnen Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.050