Background: Enhancing diabetes self-management (DSM) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can reduce the risk of complications, enhance healthier lifestyles, and improve quality of life. Furthermore, vulnerable groups struggle more with DSM. Aim: To explore barriers and facilitators related to DSM in vulnerable groups through the perspectives of patients with T2D and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: Data were collected through three interactive workshops with Danish-speaking patients with T2D (n=6), Urdu-speaking patients with T2D (n=6), and HCPs (n=16) and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Results: The following barriers to DSM were found among members of vulnerable groups with T2D: 1) lack of access to DSM support, 2) interference and judgment from one's social environment, and 3) feeling powerless or helpless. The following factors facilitated DSM among vulnerable persons with T2D: 1) a person-centered approach, 2) peer support, and 3) practical and concrete knowledge about DSM. Several barriers and facilitators expressed by persons with T2D, particularly those who spoke Danish, were also expressed by HCPs. Conclusion: Vulnerable patients with T2D preferred individualized and practice-based education tailored to their needs. More attention should be paid to training HCPs to handle feelings of helplessness and lack of motivation among vulnerable groups, particularly among ethnic minority patients, and to tailor care to ethnic minorities.

Aims To synthesize primary research into the impact of person-centred diabetes self-management education, and support that targets people with type 2 diabetes, on behavioural, psychosocial and cardiometabolic outcomes and to identify effective mechanisms underlying positive outcomes of person-centred diabetes self-management education and support.Methods Using Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review method, we conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2008 and June 2019 using PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL. After article selection according to established criteria, study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists for cohort studies, randomized controlled trials and qualitative research.Results From 1901 identified records, 22 (19 quantitative, two qualitative, and one mixed methods) were considered eligible for inclusion. Interventions were categorized by content, medium of delivery, and outcomes. Qualitative studies, quantitative cohort studies and randomized controlled trials demonstrated positive outcomes, with no differences in success rates across study design. Interventions were largely successful in improving HbA 1c and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life but had limited success in lowering cholesterol and weight, or initiating long-term improvements in lifestyle behaviours. Primary objectives were achieved more often than secondary objectives, and studies with fewer outcomes appeared more successful in achieving specific outcomes.Conclusions Person-centred diabetes self-management education and support has demonstrated a considerable impact on desired diabetes-related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. To advance the field further, new studies should take advantage of systematic and transparent approaches to person-centred diabetes self-management education. Diabet. Med. 37, 909-923 (2020)

Background: Users with mental health problems (users) have a substantially higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes than the general population. Recent studies show that traditional lifestyle interventions focusing solely on exercise and diet among users have limited effect. Studies suggest collaborative models as a starting point for health behaviour change are more beneficial, but implementation in practice is a challenge. Using the Medical Research Council's guidance for process evaluation, we explored implementation of a collaborative model in health education activities targeting users. The collaborative model focused on involving users in agenda setting and reflection about readiness to change health behaviour and was supported by dialogue tools (e.g., quotes and games). Educators received 3 days of training in applying the model. Methods: Collected data included questionnaires for users (n = 154) and professionals (n = 158), interviews with users (n = 14), and observations of health education activities (n = 37) and the professional development programme (n = 9). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and systematic text condensation. Results: Ninetysix percent (152) of professionals tested the model in practice and tried at least one tool. Users reported that the model supported them in expressing their thoughts about their health and focused on their needs rather than the agenda of the professional. Ninetythree percent (143) of users strongly agreed that professionals were openminded and responsive. However, observations showed that some professionals overlooked cues from users about motivation for health behaviour change. Furthermore, professionals identified lack of involvement from their managers as a barrier to implementation. Conclusions: Implementation of a collaborative model was feasible in practice. Training of professionals in active listening and involvement of managers prior to implementation is crucial.