To stimulate adequate care strategies, health personnel should acknowledge depression and diabetes-specific emotional distress as different conditions in clinical consultations. Addressing diabetes-specific emotional distress, in particular regimen distress, in clinical consultation might improve glycemic control.

AimTo examine whether diabetes-specific emotional distress was related to follow-up glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus.MethodsAdults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus completed the Diabetes Distress Scale and reported sociodemographic information when attending a clinical consultation at a university endocrinology unit. Blood samples to determine baseline HbA1c were taken during consultations. All respondents’ HbA1c measurements registered from January 2009 to December 2011 were collected from medical records. The relationship between baseline diabetes-specific emotional distress and HbA1c was examined with linear mixed-effects models in 175 patients with complete data.ResultsAfter controlling for confounders, baseline diabetes-specific emotional distress and glycaemic control were significantly associated (fixed-effect coefficient 0.40, P < 0.001) and the regimen-related distress subscale had the strongest association with glycaemic control (fixed-effect coefficient 0.47, P < 0.001). The two-item measure of diabetes-specific distress had a weaker but still significant association with glycaemic control (fixed-effect coefficient 0.31, P < 0.001). None of these relationships was significant after adjusting for the baseline HbA1c.ConclusionsPeople with elevated baseline diabetes-specific emotional distress are at risk of prolonged suboptimum glycaemic control; therefore, elevated diabetes-specific emotional distress, especially regimen-related distress, might be an important marker for prolonged suboptimum glycaemic control, and might indicate a need for special attention regarding patient self-management.What’s new? In adults with Type 1 diabetes, elevated baseline diabetes-specific emotional distress is associated with worse glycaemic control over a 1–3-year period and regimen-related distress had the strongest association with subsequent glycaemic control. Baseline diabetes-specific emotional distress is associated with the stable component of glycaemic control and does not account for within-individual change in glycaemic control over 1–3 years. Elevated diabetes-specific emotional distress may be an important marker for risk of prolonged suboptimum glycaemic control.

Aim To explore young adults' experiences of outpatient follow‐up appointments, completing electronic Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and using the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale during the Diabetes Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (DiaPROM) pilot trial. Methods We performed a qualitative study among 19 young adults (aged 22–39 years) with type 1 diabetes who participated in the pilot trial. Between February and June 2019, we conducted individual, semi‐structured telephone interviews with participants from the intervention and control arms. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. Results Our analyses generated three themes, each with two subthemes: (1) Follow‐up with limitations; (i) Marginal dialogue about everyday challenges, (ii) Value of supportive relationships and continuity, indicate that previous follow‐up had been experienced as challenging and insufficient. (2) New insights and raised awareness; (i) More life‐oriented insights, (ii) Moving out of the comfort zone, suggest mostly positive experiences with completing questionnaires and discussing the PAID scores. (3) Addressing problem areas with an open mind; (i) Need for elaboration, (ii) Preparedness for dialogue, indicate that both openness and explanations were vital in the follow‐up. Conclusions Participants characterised the previous follow‐up as challenging and insufficient. They described completing and using the PAID as somewhat uncomfortable yet worthwhile. Our findings also suggest that by utilising diabetes distress data alongside health and biomedical outcomes, consultations became more attuned to the young adults' wishes and needs, mainly because the dialogue was more focused and direct. Hence, the PAID has the potential to facilitate person‐centredness and improve patient–provider relationships.

Background Living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is demanding, and emotional problems may impair ability for diabetes self-management. Thus, diabetes guidelines recommend regular assessment of such problems. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess diabetes-related distress and psychological well-being is considered useful. It has been proposed that future work should examine the use of PROMs to support the care of individual patients and improve the quality of health services. To our knowledge, the use of PROMs has not been systematically evaluated in diabetes care services in Norway. Electronically captured PROMs can be directly incorporated into electronic patient records. Thus, the study’s overall aim was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of capturing PROMs electronically on a touchscreen computer in clinical diabetes practice. Methods Adults with T1D age ≥ 40 years completed PROMs on a touchscreen computer at Haukeland University Hospital’s diabetes outpatient clinic. We included 46 items related to diabetes-related distress, self-perceived diabetes competence, awareness of hypoglycaemia, occurrence of hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia and fluctuating glucose levels, routines for glucose monitoring, general well-being and health-related quality of life. Participants subsequently completed a paper-based questionnaire regarding comprehension and relevance of the PROMs, acceptance of the number of items and willingness to complete electronic PROMs annually. We wrote field notes in the outpatient clinic based on observations and comments from the invited participants. Results During spring 2017, 69 participants (50.7% men), age 40 to 74 years, were recruited. Generally, the touchscreen computer functioned well technically. Median time spent completing the PROMs was 8 min 19 s. Twenty-nine (42.0%) participants completed the PROMs without missing items, with an 81.4% average instrument completion rate. Participants reported that the PROMs were comprehensible ( n = 62) and relevant ( n = 46) to a large or very large degree, with an acceptable number of items ( n = 51). Moreover, 54 were willing to complete PROMs annually. Participants commented that the focus on living with diabetes was valued. Conclusions Capturing PROMs on a touchscreen computer in an outpatient clinic was technically and practically feasible. The participants found the PROMs to be relevant and acceptable with a manageable number of items, and reported willingness to complete PROMs annually. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0419-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim To explore nurses’ and physicians’ experiences with diabetes consultations in general and the use of dialogue tools in the Diabetes Patient‐Related Outcome Measures (DiaPROM) pilot trial. Methods We used a qualitative explorative design by conducting semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with five nurses and nine physicians engaged in the DiaPROM pilot trial. The pilot trial aimed to test an intervention utilizing the patient‐reported Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and person‐centred communication skills as dialogue tools in clinical consultations with adults with type 1 diabetes. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data. Results We generated three themes (each including two subthemes) from the analysis of participants’ experiences: (1) ‘Conflicting demands and priorities’ (subthemes: ‘Balancing guideline recommendations with patients’ main concerns’ and ‘Experiencing that patients need more support to disclose their emotional concerns’); (2) ‘Insights about using dialogue tools’ (subthemes: ‘The benefits and challenges of using the PAID as a dialogue tool’ and ‘Communication techniques are helpful’); and (3) ‘Facilitating new interventions is challenging’ (subthemes: ‘Unclear roles and responsibilities in the multidisciplinary teamwork’ and ‘The capacity sets the limit, not the willingness’). Conclusions Our findings indicate that the physicians and nurses experienced substantial challenges related to time and resources in the use of dialogue tools to support people's emotional concerns in clinical diabetes consultations. Thus, there is a need for healthcare organizations to adjust priorities to focus on the emotional burden of diabetes if the multidisciplinary diabetes teams are to successfully integrate psychosocial support into routine diabetes care.