ArticleMetabologia2026
Introducing diabetes emotional well-being into routine consultations for adults with type 1 diabetes.
Article in Metabologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims/hypothesis: Diabetes distress affects approximately 40% of adults with type 1 diabetes and is associated with impaired self-care, but is rarely assessed or addressed in routine care. The D-Stress study aims to develop an innovative care pathway to manage diabetes distress. A core component seeks to integrate comprehensive distress assessment with discussion into routine consultations. This rapid realist review examined how, why and in what contexts diabetes distress assessment and discussion might work to assess, manage and reduce diabetes distress among adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Following guidance for rapid realist reviews, we synthesised evidence from 35 documents identified via expert-led searches and stakeholder consultation. Data were analysed to develop programme theories explaining how the intervention might operate in clinical practice. Results: Eight programme theories were generated. Key mechanisms include: (1) embedding emotional health in routine care; (2) comprehensive assessment and interpretation for timely support; (3) facilitating self-reflection and priority setting; (4) maintaining continuity through regular emotional health discussions; (5) supporting healthcare professionals to personalise consultations; (6) clarifying care pathways and expectations; (7) normalising emotional responses to type 1 diabetes; and (8) promoting person-centred, collaborative consultations. Evidence indicated that validated type 1 diabetes assessments with structured dialogue can normalise emotional responses and promote person-centred care. Critical contextual factors include sufficient consultation time, staff training and clear referral pathways. Conclusions/interpretation: Comprehensive assessment with discussion may address a gap in diabetes care by integrating emotional health into routine consultations. The programme theories developed here suggest that diabetes distress assessment and discussion may reduce risk of escalation of distress, empower adults with type 1 diabetes and strengthen therapeutic relationships. These findings will guide the realist process evaluation of the D-Stress pathway, highlighting contextual considerations essential for implementation. Graphical abstract: Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s44357-026-00010-w.
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.