Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34275440›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

The experiences of Chinese general practitioners in communicating with people with type 2 diabetes-a focus group study.

Mi Yao, Dong-Ying Zhang, Jie-Ting Fan, Kai Lin, Shamil Haroon, Dawn Jackson, Hai Li, Wei Chen, Richard Lehman, Kar Keung Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mi YaoInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Dong-Ying ZhangGuangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jie-Ting FanDepartment of Endocrinology, PLA Rocket Force Characteristic Medical Center, Beijing, China.
Kai LinFamily Medicine Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Shamil HaroonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. S.Haroon@bham.ac.uk.
Dawn JacksonCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Hai LiDepartment of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wei ChenDepartment of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510 080, China. chenwei99@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Richard LehmanInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Kar Keung ChengInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina has more ascertained cases of diabetes than any other country. Much of the care of people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in China is managed by GPs and this will increase with the implementation of health care reforms aimed at strengthening China's primary health care system. Diabetes care requires effective communication between physicians and patients, yet little is known about this area in China. We aimed to explore the experiences of Chinese GPs in communicating with diabetes patients and how this may relate to communication skills training.

methodsFocus groups with Chinese GPs were undertaken. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 15 GPs from Guangzhou city in China. All data were audio-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was applied to code the data and identify themes.

resultsSeven males and 8 females from 12 general practices attended 4 focus groups with a mean age of 37.6 years and 7.5 years' work experience. Four major themes were identified: diversity in diabetic patients, communication with patients, patient-doctor relationship, and communication skills training. GPs reported facing a wide variety of diabetes patients in their daily practice. They believed insufficient knowledge and misunderstanding of diabetes was common among patients. They highlighted several challenges in communicating with diabetes patients, such as insufficient consultation time, poor communication regarding blood glucose monitoring and misunderstanding the risk of complications. They used terms such as "blind spot" or "not on the same channel" to describe gaps in their patients' understanding of diabetes and its management, and cited this as a cause of ineffective patient-doctor communication. Mutual understanding of diabetes was perceived to be an important factor towards building positive patient-doctor relationships. Although GPs believed communication skills training was necessary, they reported rarely received this.

conclusionsChinese GPs reported facing challenges in communicating with diabetes patients. Some of these were perceived as being due to the patients themselves, others were attributed to system constraints, and some were seen as related to a lack of clinician training. The study identified key issues for the development of primary care-based management of diabetes in China, and for developing appropriate communication skills training programs for the primary care workforce.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2General PractitionersAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringChinaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchBlood GlucoseCommunicationExperiencesGeneral practitionerType 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID34275440
PMCPMC8287665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.