Measuring treatment burden in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Measuring treatment burden is important for the effective management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) care. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the most robust approach for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM based on existing evidence. METHODS: Articles from seven databases were retrieved. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies examining treatment burden in adults with T2DM and/or reporting relevant experiences were included. A convergent segregated approach with a mixed-methods design of systematic review was employed, creating a measurement framework in a narrative review for consistent critical appraisal. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. The measurement properties of the instruments were evaluated using the Consensus based Standards for selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 21,584 records were screened, and 26 articles were included, comprising 11 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and 4 mixed-methods studies. A thematic analysis of qualitative data extracted from the included articles summarised a measurement framework encompassing seven core and six associated measurements. The core measurements, including financial, medication, administrative, lifestyle, healthcare, time/travel, and medical information burdens, directly reflect the constructs pertinent to the treatment burden of T2DM. In contrast, the associated measurement themes do not directly reflect the burdens or are less substantiated by current evidence. The results of the COSMIN checklist evaluation demonstrated that the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), and Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) have robust instrument development processes. These three instruments, with the highest total counts combining the number of themes covered and "positive" ratings in COSMIN evaluation, were in the top tertile stratification, demonstrating superior applicability for measuring T2DM treatment burden. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides evidence for the currently superior option of measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM. It also revealed that most current research was conducted in well-resourced institutions, potentially overlooking variability in under-resourced settings.

Exploring treatment burden in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a thematic analysis in china's primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Understanding treatment burden is a critical element to the effective management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). The current study aims to address the knowledge gap surrounding treatment burden of T2DM from the patient's perspective in China's primary care settings. METHODS: A narrative review informed the creation of an a priori coding structure to identify aspects of T2DM treatment burden. Focus groups were conducted, employing a maximum variation sampling strategy to select participants from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds across urban, suburban, rural, and remote areas in China. Participants included adults with T2DM care in primary care settings for over a year and a Treatment Burden Questionnaire score of 25 or higher. Deductive thematic analysis, guided by the coding structure, facilitated a comprehensive exploration and further development of the conceptual framework of T2DM treatment burden. RESULTS: Four focus groups, each comprising five participants from diverse areas, were conducted. Utilising the Cumulative Complexity Model and Normalisation Process Theory as theoretical underpinnings, the thematic analysis refined the conceptual framework based on the coding structure from the narrative review. Five key themes were refined, encompassing medical information, medication, administration, healthcare system, and lifestyle. Additionally, the financial and time/travel themes merged into a new theme termed "personal resources", illustrating their overlapping within the framework. Participants in these focus groups highlighted challenges in managing medical information, an aspect often underrepresented in prior treatment burden research. The thematic analysis culminated in a finalised conceptual framework, offering a comprehensive understanding of the treatment burden experiences of people with T2DM in China's primary care settings. This framework includes six key constructs, delineating T2DM treatment burden and associated factors, such as antecedents and consequences. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the treatment burden of T2DM. A conceptual framework was finalised to deepen the understanding of the multifaceted constructs and the nature of treatment burden in people with T2DM. Furthermore, it emphasises the need to tailor T2DM treatment to individual capacities, considering their personal resource allocation and treatment utilisation.