4.2 Article

The role of patient, physician and systemic factors in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 344-349

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/19.4.344

关键词

clinical practice guidelines; family physicians; patient factors; systemic factors; type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Few studies have explored the contextual dimensions and subsequent interactions that contribute to a lack of adherence in the application of guidelines for diabetes management. Objective. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore family physicians' issues and perceptions regarding the barriers to and facilitators of the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods. Four focus groups composed of family physicians (n= 30) explored the participants' experiences in the management of patients with type 2 DM. A semi-structured interview guide began with questions on family physicians' experience of providing care and included specific probes to stimulate discussion about the various barriers to and facilitators of the management of type 2 DM in family practice. Results. Participants clearly identified type 2 DM as a chronic disease most often managed by family physicians. The findings revealed distinct barriers and facilitators in managing patients with type 2 DM which fell into three domains: patient factors; physician factors; and systemic factors. There was a dynamic interplay among the three factors. The important role of education was common to each. Conclusions. The interactions of patient, physician and systemic factors have implications for the implementation of a diabetes management model. The care of patients with type 2 DM exemplifies the ongoing challenges of caring for patients with a chronic disease in family practice. The findings, while specific to the management of type 2 DM, have potential transferability to other chronic illnesses managed by family physicians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据