Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40652160›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2025

GPs' experienced challenges and strategies for supporting patient self-management in disease management programs for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease - a qualitative study.

Larisa Pilic, Kira Molkentin, Alina Herrmann, Marcus Redaèlli, Lisa Kupsch, Lion Lehmann, August-Wilhelm Bödecker, Beate Sigrid Müller, Stephanie Stock, Stefan Wilm

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Larisa PilicInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. larisa.pilic@uk-koeln.de.
Kira MolkentinInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Alina HerrmannInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Marcus RedaèlliInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology (IGKE), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lisa KupschInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Lion LehmannInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
August-Wilhelm BödeckerInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Beate Sigrid MüllerInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Stephanie StockInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology (IGKE), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stefan WilmInstitute of General Practice, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective self-management (SM) is essential for improving health and preventing severe complications in patients with lifestyle-related chronic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and CHD. Thus, enhancing patients' SM through self-management support has become an integral part of chronic care programs worldwide. However, information on the current focus on SM in German disease management programs (DMPs) is very limited. The aim of this study was to understand general practitioners' (GPs') experiences and strategies for promoting SM.

methodsAn exploratory qualitative design was selected, resulting in the conduct of five focus group discussions with 20 GPs in August and September 2020. The GPs were recruited from the teaching practices of the University Hospital Cologne through purposive sampling. Their experiences and opinions on SM were assessed in questions blocks using a semi-structured interview guide and analysed by a multi-professional team employing Kuckartz' method of qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe focus group discussions were structured around three main categories: (1) GPs' perceived patient SM in the DMPs for T2DM and CHD, (2) GPs' perceptions of factors influencing patient motivation for SM, and (3) strategies fostering patient motivation for SM. Discussions revolved around patients' motivation and capabilities to implement a sustainable SM in their daily lives. Many GPs followed a patient-centered approach to foster SM in their patients, considering various challenging individual, social and institutional factors that influence SM in chronically ill patients.

conclusionGPs regularly support their patients' SM as a routine part of the DMP through ongoing consultations and education. However, they face several challenges in facilitating sustainable patient SM, which requires support by additional and standardized measures beyond the current DMP care to be effective.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCoronary DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2General PractitionersSelf-ManagementAdultDisease ManagementFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchCoronary heart disease (CHD)Disease management program (DMP)General practicePatient motivationSelf-managementType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)

Identifiers

PMID40652160
PMCPMC12255095

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.