Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40128789›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Using normalisation process theory to understand implementation of effective early-onset type 2 diabetes treatment and care within England: a qualitative study.

Radhika Chauhan, Melanie J Davies, Carl May, Shivani Misra, Jack A Sargeant, Mike Skarlatos, Jane Speight, Emma G Wilmot, Caroline Wilson, Michelle Hadjiconstantinou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Radhika ChauhanDivision of Psychology, School of Applied Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
Melanie J DaviesDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Carl MayFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Shivani MisraDivision of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jack A SargeantLeicester Diabetes Centre, University Leicester Hospitals Trust, Leicester, UK.
Mike SkarlatosLeicester Diabetes Centre, University Leicester Hospitals Trust, Leicester, UK.
Jane SpeightAustralian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Emma G WilmotDiabetes Department, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
Caroline WilsonLeicester Diabetes Centre, University Leicester Hospitals Trust, Leicester, UK.
Michelle HadjiconstantinouDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. mh333@leicester.ac.uk.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR201165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing prevalence, early-onset type 2 diabetes (EOT2D) has received little clinical and qualitative research attention within England. This qualitative study aimed to explore and understand the unmet needs of people living with early-onset type 2 diabetes (PEOT2D) and their diabetes care within England.

methodsUsing semi-structured interviews, data was collected, transcribed and analysed from 25 PEOT2D and 25 healthcare professionals (HCPs). Taking an abductive approach, data for both cohorts were analysed and interpreted according to four constructs of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT): coherence (sense-making), cognitive participation (engagement), collective action (enactment) and reflexive monitoring (formal and informal appraisal).

resultsOur findings revealed several unmet needs in current treatment and care for PEOT2D. The main unmet need was access to specialist care. Having GP (general practitioner) practices as their main caregivers presented a significant barrier to this population successfully carrying out their diabetes self-care. HCPs in specialist roles expressed similar views and were keen to see PEOT2D receive access to holistic and specialist care via a multidisciplinary team. Data interpretation according to the four constructs of NPT found that implementation of this approach would involve fostering an environment of support that allowed HCPs across the primary and secondary interface to do the following: (1) provide consultations incorporating person-centred care, shared decision-making, and non-judgemental and non-stigmatising behaviours and (2) work in an integrated and synchronous manner using streamlined referrals, interprofessional collaborations and team-based learning. Provision of tailored financial, human (additional staffing) and learning resources was found to be integral to allow creation of tailored multidisciplinary teams, and individual and collective skill enhancement of both specialist and primary care providers.

conclusionAlthough both PEOT2D and specialist care providers are keen for young adults with EOT2D to receive access to specialist and holistic care, there are several resource barriers that must be addressed to allow implementation of their desired approach to treatment and care. Further qualitative research with primary care providers (for example, GPs and practice nurses) involved in EOT2D care is needed to understand if (and how) their views and experiences differ from those providing specialist care.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2AdultAge of OnsetEnglandFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSelf CareHealthcare professionalsImplementationNPTPeople living with early-onset type 2 diabetesSpecialist care

Identifiers

PMID40128789
PMCPMC11931738

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.