SynthesisBMJ open2025
Healthcare workers' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to referral to type 2 diabetes prevention programmes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessing the Fit of a Digitally Delivered National Diabetes Prevention Program Among Rural Living Adults: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDiabetes is a growing global health concern. International guidelines recommend referral to diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) for those at high risk of type 2 diabetes. However, many of those eligible to participate in DPPs are not referred. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are pivotal to the referral processes. This study aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise barriers and facilitators to referral to DPPs from the perspective of HCWs.
designSystematic review using the best-fit framework synthesis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from January 1997 to July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies exploring HCWs' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to referral to DPPs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One author screened, extracted and appraised the literature while a second author independently verified at least a 20% sample at each stage. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The best-fit framework approach was used to synthesise the evidence with the Theoretical Domains Framework as the a priori framework.
resultsOf 9998 studies identified, 31 met the inclusion criteria, with a further six identified from reference and citation searching. Barriers and facilitators were coded to 11 of the 14 TDF domains and to another category 'Expectation of Patient Barriers'. The most frequently occurring domains for both barriers and facilitators were Environmental Context and Resources, Expectation of Patient Barriers and Knowledge. HCWs felt that clear easy referral pathways to the programmes and additional staff or resources were essential to improve referral. HCWs' were concerned that attending the DPP would place a (time and/or financial) burden on their patients which left them conflicted about referral. HCWs lacked knowledge of the effectiveness, availability and accessibility of DPPs.
conclusionsFuture strategies to improve referral to DPPs should include clear referral pathways and the resourcing of referral. Strategies are also needed to build awareness of DPPs and to address concerns among HCWs about their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.