The influence of diabetes distress on digital interventions for diabetes management in vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study of patient perspectives

Anne Sophie Mathiesen, Thordis Thomsen, Tonny Jensen, Charlotte Schiøtz, Henning Langberg, Ingrid Egerod, Anne Sophie Mathiesen, Thordis Thomsen, Tonny Jensen, Charlotte Schiøtz, Henning Langberg, Ingrid Egerod

Abstract

Background: Digital interventions for improving diabetes management in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are used universally. Digital interventions are defined as any intervention accessed and taking input from people with T2DM in the form of a web-based or mobile phone-based app to improve diabetes self-management. However, the current confidence in digital interventions threatens to augment social inequalities in health, also known as the "digital divide". To counteract dissemination of the digital divide, we aimed to assess the potential of a tailored digital intervention for improving diabetes management in vulnerable people with T2DM.

Methods: A qualitative design using semi-structured in-depth interviews to explore the perspectives of 12 vulnerable people with T2DM. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Vulnerability was defined by the presence of one or more comorbidities, one or more lifestyle risk factors, poor diabetes management, low educational level and low health literacy.

Results: The main themes identified were: "Dealing with diabetes distress" characterized by psychological avoidance mechanisms; "Suffering informational confusion" dealing with inconsistent information; "Experiencing digital alienation" dealing with loss of freedom when technology invades the private sphere; and "Missing the human touch" preferring human interaction over digital contact.

Conclusion: Vulnerable people with T2DM are unprepared for digital interventions for disease management. Experiencing diabetes distress may be an intermediate mechanism leading to nonadherence to digital interventions and the preference for human interaction in vulnerable people with T2DM. Future interventions could include a designated caregiver and an allocated buddy to provide support and assist uptake of digital interventions for diabetes management.

Keywords: Diabetes distress; Digital interventions; Health inequalities; Qualitative research; Type 2 diabetes; Vulnerable population.

References

    1. WHO Diabetes. 2016: .
    1. Stringhini S. Association of lifecourse socioeconomic status with chronic inflammation and type 2 diabetes risk: the Whitehall II prospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001479.
    1. Look A.R.G., Wing R.R. Long-term effects of a lifestyle intervention on weight and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: four-year results of the Look AHEAD trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(17):1566–1575.
    1. Thomas, D.E., E.J. Elliott, and G.A. Naughton, Exercise for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2006(3): p. CD002968.
    1. Holman R.R. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–1589.
    1. Holman R.R. Long-term follow-up after tight control of blood pressure in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1565–1576.
    1. Gaede P. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(6):580–591.
    1. Schillinger D. Does literacy mediate the relationship between education and health outcomes? A study of a low-income population with diabetes. Public Health Rep. 2006;121(3):245–254.
    1. Schillinger D. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):475–482.
    1. Koetsenruijter J. Social support and self-management capabilities in diabetes patients: An international observational study. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(4):638–643.
    1. Reifegerste D., Hartleib S. Hypoglycemia-related information seeking among informal caregivers of type 2 diabetes patients: Implications for health education. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2016;4:7–12.
    1. Lipscombe L.L. Income-related differences in mortality among people with diabetes mellitus. CMAJ. 2010;182(1):E1–E17.
    1. McLean G. Digital interventions to promote self-management in adults with hypertension: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(4):e133.
    1. Sarkar U. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):318–321.
    1. LeRouge C., Wickramasinghe N. A review of user-centered design for diabetes-related consumer health informatics technologies. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(4):1039–1056.
    1. Harrison S. Are patients with diabetes mellitus satisfied with technologies used to assist with diabetes management and coping?: A structured review. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16(11):771–783.
    1. Sarkar U. The literacy divide: health literacy and the use of an internet-based patient portal in an integrated health system-results from the diabetes study of northern California (DISTANCE) J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):183–196.
    1. Sarkar U., Fisher L., Schillinger D. Is self-efficacy associated with diabetes self-management across race/ethnicity and health literacy? Diabetes Care. 2006;29(4):823–829.
    1. Lyles C.R., Sarkar U. Health literacy, vulnerable patients, and health information technology use: where do we go from here? J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(3):271–272.
    1. Shivayogi P. Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(1):53–57.
    1. Valderas J.M. Defining comorbidity: implications for understanding health and health services. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(4):357–363.
    1. Harris J. Involving people with diabetes and the wider community in diabetes research: a realist review protocol. Syst Rev. 2015;4:146.
    1. Ekeland A.G., Bowes A., Flottorp S. Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(1):1–11.
    1. Graneheim U.H., Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–112.
    1. Hsieh H.F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288.
    1. Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357.
    1. Robinson, K.L., M; Hansen, BH; Andreasen, AH; Jeppesen, M; Buhelt, LP; Lau, CJ; Glümer, C:, [National Health Survey 2013]. 2013, Research Center of Prevention and Health, The Capital Region of Denmark.
    1. Al Sayah F., Williams B., Johnson J.A. Measuring health literacy in individuals with diabetes: a systematic review and evaluation of available measures. Health Edu Behav. 2013;40(1):42–55.
    1. Guest Bunce G., Bunce Arwen, Laura Johnson. How many interviews are enough ? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Fields Methods. 2006;18(1):18–59.
    1. Lincoln, Y.S.G., E. G., Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Beverly Hills: SAGE.
    1. Fisher L. Diabetes distress but not clinical depression or depressive symptoms is associated with glycemic control in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):23–28.
    1. Fisher L. When is diabetes distress clinically meaningful?: Establishing cut points for the Diabetes Distress Scale. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(2):259–264.
    1. Polonsky W.H. Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the diabetes distress scale. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(3):626–631.
    1. Tanenbaum M.L. Diabetes distress from the patient's perspective: qualitative themes and treatment regimen differences among adults with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(6):1060–1068.
    1. Lipscombe C., Burns R.J., Schmitz N. Exploring trajectories of diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes; a latent class growth modeling approach. J Affect Disord. 2015;188:160–166.
    1. Ralston J.D. Patients' experience with a diabetes support programme based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004;328(7449):1159.
    1. Fisher L. Impact of baseline patient characteristics on interventions to reduce diabetes distress: the role of personal conscientiousness and diabetes self-efficacy. Diabet Med. 2014;31(6):739–746.
    1. Gonzalez J.S. Distress and type 2 diabetes-treatment adherence: a mediating role for perceived control. Health Psychol. 2015;34(5):505–513.
    1. Miller L.M., Bell R.A. Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. J Aging Health. 2012;24(3):525–541.
    1. DeJean D. Patient experiences of depression and anxiety with chronic disease: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(16):1–33.
    1. Vanstone M. How diet modification challenges are magnified in vulnerable or marginalized people with diabetes and heart disease: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(14):1–40.
    1. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989;44(9):1175–1184.
    1. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55(3):479–488.
    1. . 2017 [cited 2017 0701].
    1. Carducci A. Mass media health information: quantitative and qualitative analysis of daily press coverage and its relation with public perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(3):475–478.
    1. Torenholt R. Simplicity, flexibility, and respect: preferences related to patient education in hardly reached people with type 2 diabetes. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1581–1586.
    1. Lyles C.R. Qualitative evaluation of a mobile phone and web-based collaborative care intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(5):563–569.
    1. Mayberry L.S. Stress, depression and medication nonadherence in diabetes: test of the exacerbating and buffering effects of family support. J Behav Med. 2015;38(2):363–371.
    1. Vest B.M. Diabetes self-management in a low-income population: impacts of social support and relationships with the health care system. Chronic Illn. 2013;9(2):145–155.
    1. August K.J. Spouses' involvement in their partners' diabetes management: associations with spouse stress and perceived marital quality. J Fam Psychol. 2013;27(5):712–721.
    1. Mayberry L.S., Harper K.J., Osborn C.Y. Family behaviors and type 2 diabetes: what to target and how to address in interventions for adults with low socioeconomic status. Chronic Illn. 2016;12(3):199–215.
    1. Arsand E. Mobile phone-based self-management tools for type 2 diabetes: the few touch application. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(2):328–336.
    1. Nijland N. Factors influencing the use of a Web-based application for supporting the self-care of patients with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e71.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅