Evidence mapPaperPMID 39773273Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

Shared decision-making in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of patients' preferences and healthcare providers' perspectives.

Maryam Peimani, Anita L Stewart, Gholamreza Garmaroudi, Ensieh Nasli-Esfahani

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

4 authors.

Maryam PeimaniDiabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. m_peimani@alumnus.tums.ac.ir.
Anita L StewartCenter for Aging in Diverse Communities, Institute for Health & Aging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gholamreza GarmaroudiDepartment of Health Education & Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ensieh Nasli-EsfahaniDiabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. e-naslie@sina.tums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, SharedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Patient PreferenceAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchPatient involvementPatient participationPatient preferencesShared decision-makingType 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID39773273
PMCPMC11705876

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.