SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Shared decision-making in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of patients' preferences and healthcare providers' perspectives.
Synthesis 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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping research trends in shared decision-making for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Training in communication skills for healthcare providers in chronic care: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Is There Any Difference in Preferences Between Patients and Physicians? Evidence From Anti-Hyperglycemic Medications Choices for Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes · 2026Article
- Beyond prescriptions: an analysis of patient journey, self-management adherence, and unmet needs in type 2 diabetes.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Patient decision aid-supported shared decision making and short-term decision-making outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a prospective observational comparative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Observational
- Multilevel barriers and facilitators of shared decision-making in chronic illness management: a social ecological model approach.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Implementing Patient Decision Aids for Insulin Initiation in China: What are the Barriers and Facilitators? A TDF-Based Qualitative Study.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Article
- Whose voice counts? Family caregivers' roles in shared decision making for chronic illness in urban South Korea: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Perspectives of infectious disease specialists on shared decision-making for fever of unknown origin: a national survey in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A guide for a patient-centric approach to asthma management: results of a European Delphi consensus programme.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Review
- Patient participation and its determinants based on the Social Ecological Model: a cross-sectional study in North China.BMC health services 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is crucial for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management due to the complexity of treatment options. This systematic review sought to understand T2DM patients' preferences and diabetes care providers' perspectives regarding SDM, and the barriers and facilitators to SDM.
methodsFive databases were searched from 2000 to 2023 (Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Embase). All included papers were quantitative and qualitative studies regarding preferences of patients with T2DM for SDM, perspectives of providers on SDM, and their barriers and facilitators to SDM. Quantitative findings were extracted as percentages, and qualitative findings were extracted as presented in the original research paper. Study selection was carried out independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus and by consultation with the supervisor. The Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Qualitative Research and for Cross Sectional Studies was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included papers.
resultsThirty-four studies were included in this review; 22 focused on T2DM patients' decision-making preferences, 7 focused on perspectives of diabetes care providers, and 5 addressed both. Of the 27 studies of T2DM patients, 20 (ten quantitative and ten qualitative studies) reported that respondents preferred and valued SDM and wanted to make decisions in collaboration with a provider. Of the 12 studies of providers, only 5 reported that providers had positive views towards SDM and preferred to involve patients in decision-making. A comprehensive list of SDM facilitators and barriers included patient factors (facilitators like higher health literacy and motivation, and barriers like blind trust in physicians and poor health), provider factors (facilitators like a physician's information-giving behavior and medical knowledge/technical skills, and barriers like a paternalistic attitude and poor interpersonal style), and context factors (facilitators like physician accessibility and availability, and barriers like a lack of system support and low continuity).
conclusionAlthough SDM is important for most patients living with diabetes, the evidence from included studies suggest that providers in diabetes practice do not universally express positive views towards SDM. Because T2DM patients and their providers need to work together to implement the SDM approach satisfactorily, there is a need to encourage more providers to do so.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.