Skip to main content
Download PDF

Measuring treatment burden in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): a mixed-methods systematic review

BMC Primary Care volume 25, Article number: 206 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Measuring treatment burden is important for the effective management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) care. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the most robust approach for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM based on existing evidence.

Methods

Articles from seven databases were retrieved. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies examining treatment burden in adults with T2DM and/or reporting relevant experiences were included. A convergent segregated approach with a mixed-methods design of systematic review was employed, creating a measurement framework in a narrative review for consistent critical appraisal. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. The measurement properties of the instruments were evaluated using the Consensus based Standards for selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist.

Results

A total of 21,584 records were screened, and 26 articles were included, comprising 11 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and 4 mixed-methods studies. A thematic analysis of qualitative data extracted from the included articles summarised a measurement framework encompassing seven core and six associated measurements. The core measurements, including financial, medication, administrative, lifestyle, healthcare, time/travel, and medical information burdens, directly reflect the constructs pertinent to the treatment burden of T2DM. In contrast, the associated measurement themes do not directly reflect the burdens or are less substantiated by current evidence. The results of the COSMIN checklist evaluation demonstrated that the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), and Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) have robust instrument development processes. These three instruments, with the highest total counts combining the number of themes covered and "positive" ratings in COSMIN evaluation, were in the top tertile stratification, demonstrating superior applicability for measuring T2DM treatment burden.

Conclusions

This systematic review provides evidence for the currently superior option of measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM. It also revealed that most current research was conducted in well-resourced institutions, potentially overlooking variability in under-resourced settings.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) constitutes over 90% of diabetes cases globally [1]. Managing T2DM entails complex treatments, various treatment-associated activities, and dealing with multiple complications, all of which place a significant burden on patients in terms of workload and costs [2]. Patients adhering to recommended T2DM treatments often consume numerous daily medications, visit healthcare professionals frequently, and invest substantial finances and time into their treatment [3]. These activities can result in the commitment of significant personal resources and impose unreasonable demands on patients, thereby increasing the treatment burden [4].

The treatment burden is an identified outcome of healthcare for people with chronic diseases, affecting behavioural, cognitive, physical, and psychosocial health of the individual [5]. This burden may arise when healthcare professionals prioritise treatment outcomes with limited regard for patient acceptability and feasibility, alongside insufficient coordination among specialists focusing on their respective areas of expertise [6]. Measuring the treatment burden in individuals with T2DM necessitates the quantification of multiple dimensions, such as aspects of financial, social, and psychological, which, however, present challenges when using observation or traditional estimations [7]. Wee et al. revealed the scarcity of instruments targeting the specific treatment burden among individuals with T2DM [8]. Additionally, existing instruments for assessing treatment burden may face difficulties in synthesising research findings due to heterogeneity in their development and conceptual foundations [9].

An effective approach to measuring treatment burden is crucial for integrating this concept into clinical guidelines. This integration has the potential to enhance patient experiences and outcomes by alleviating treatment burden [3, 9]. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evaluate individuals' experiences with disease and healthcare services, providing valuable data on outcomes from a patient's perspective [10, 11]. The aim of this study is to identify the most robust approach for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM based on existing evidence.

Methods

This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [12]. A protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022244190). A convergent segregated approach of mixed-methods was used in this systematic review, integrating narrative review to summarise a measurement framework and critical appraisal to determine the most robust PROMs for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM [13, 14].

Retrieval formulas

A preliminary coding manual was developed from a literature review that identified variations in the measurement of treatment burden [11, 15, 16]. This manual facilitated the identification of keywords and concepts in retrieval formulas (Supplementary file, STable 1).

Eligibility criteria

Peer-reviewed publications from inception to April 2022 were searched in four English and three Chinese databases. Studies to be considered eligible for inclusion should: (1) target adult populations (18 years and older) undergoing treatment for T2DM, and (2) qualitatively or quantitatively examine treatment burden or experiences that align with the conceptual framework proposed by Sav et al. [11], offering insights into patients' perceptions or cognitions concerning T2DM treatment burden. For quantitative studies included, additional criteria were added: (1) quantify treatment burden or relevant experiences in the target population using PROMs, and (2) specify the number of samples with T2DM. Studies that lacked a clearly defined sample of individuals diagnosed with T2DM or where the reported outcome focused on disease burden, diabetes distress, and treatment satisfaction were excluded.

Searching for literature

The search strategy was developed through group discussions (K.L., M.Y., X.J., L.A., J.O., and M.S.). Bibliographic databases (Embase, PubMed, APA PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and China Biomedical Literature Database Web (CBMWeb)) were searched using predefined Boolean operators, without filters or language restrictions. The research team used Rayyan software (https://rayyan.ai/, accessed February, 2022) to facilitate literature screening [17]. Four reviewers (K.L., M.Y., X.J., and R.L.) participated in the screening process. The screening process consisted of two stages: title and abstract screening, followed by full-text reading. Articles were included in the next stage unless all four reviewers agreed to exclude them.

Quality assessment

Four reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies and PROMs used in the studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool was employed for quality assessment, comprising nine domains specific to prevalence studies in the case of quantitative research, and ten domains for qualitative studies [18]. Evaluation for the studies with grades of "Yes", "No" or "Unclear" encompassing domains of the research design, conduct, analysis, and findings. A study was classified as low quality if more than three domains were rated as "No", "Unclear", or a combination of both. In cases of disagreement, a third-party (L.A., J.O., Y.C., M.S.) was consulted to resolve the issue.

Data extraction

In the narrative review, reported qualitative data, findings from qualitative studies, and item descriptions from PROMs were considered as qualified qualitative data for exploring T2DM treatment burden. During the critical appraisal, PROMs used to measure treatment burden in the included quantitative studies were also extracted, along with the reported findings. The data extraction process was conducted by four reviewers using a standardised, pilot-tested spreadsheet. This spreadsheet captured key characteristics of the included studies, such as study design, period, geographic location, sample size, participant information, data collection methods, and main findings. The methods of instrument development were recorded in detail. To ensure data accuracy, authors of selected articles were contacted via email to clarify any missing or ambiguous information, and their feedback was integrated into the data.

Narrative review

Initially, the narrative review was employed to summarise existing qualitative evidence into a thematic construct, representing the measurement framework for T2DM treatment burden. The narrative review employed Boell’s hermeneutic approach to summarise, interpret, and synthesise qualitative evidence from current peer-reviewed literature [19, 20]. The initial literature review identified a conceptual scope of treatment burden [11, 15, 16]. The conceptual framework proposed by Sav et al. for measuring generic treatment burden guided both the identification of literature and the data synthesis [11].

The data analysis and synthesis process encompassed four stages: coding, sorting, synthesising, and theorising [21]. The reported findings, qualitative data, and PROM items from the included studies were considered valid for qualitative analysis. An inductive thematic analysis was initially applied to the extracted qualitative data [22, 23]. This analysis was independently conducted by four reviewers (K.L., M.Y., X.J., and R.L.), beginning with a comprehensive reading and re-reading of the articles. The thorough examination led to the extraction of interpretive content that was relevant to the treatment burden of T2DM. Each extracted piece of content was coded using terminology derived from the original literature and was entered into the MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2020 software by reviewers independently. The reviewers identified recurring concepts within the data, which facilitated the generation of thematic codes related to the treatment burden experienced by individuals with T2DM. These codes were then collaboratively discussed until a consensus was reached among the reviewers. Subsequently, these thematic codes were organised into subthemes and themes. The entire analytical process, including the reviewed qualitative data, generated codes, and thematic terms, was subjected to a rigorous review by a third-party team (L.A., J.O., Y.C., M.S.).

Additionally, a panel with patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was convened, consisting of four patients and four medical professionals from China’s primary care. The panel members were recruited through a primary care setting by a researcher (K.L.). Two structured discussions and feedback sessions were conducted to review the measurement framework. A custom scale was used to collect feedback, assessing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, and effectiveness of the framework in the second session [13]. Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated to evaluate the consistency of feedback.

Critical appraisal of PROMs

The measurement framework derived from the narrative review served as the conceptual foundation for the subsequent critical appraisal of systematically included PROMs. This framework facilitates an in-depth exploration of the dimensional coverage of the included PROMs for measuring T2DM treatment burden, ensuring that the evaluation of the instrument development is both comprehensive and evidence-based. The measurement properties of PROMs were evaluated using the Consensus based Standards for selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, assessing development process, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a PROM, divided into ten domains [24]. Each domain was rated as very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not applicable (NA), with the lowest item rating determining the domain's overall rating. The "positive" results [25] were defined as obtaining "very good" and "adequate" ratings, indicated with a green background in Table 4, reflecting that the evidence supporting the measurement properties was sufficient.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval was not required, as this review exclusively included previously published data. All the studies included in our review were published in international, peer-reviewed journals. The researchers assessed the ethical considerations and adherence to relevant regulations of all included publications.

Results

Study selection

Database searches identified 21,584 records for screening, and 194 records were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 26 articles were eligible for this review, including 11 quantitative studies, 11 qualitative studies, and 4 mixed-methods studies (Fig. 1). The narrative review included all 26 articles. Three of the four mixed-methods studies, despite their quantitative parts not meeting the inclusion criteria, provided valuable qualitative insights into multiple dimensions of T2DM treatment burden. The critical appraisal extracted PROMs from 12 quantitative studies, including 1 mixed-methods study; references related to the development of these PROMs were also reviewed by snowball searching but were not included in the search results, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The PRISMA flow chart

Full size image

Quality of included studies

In the quality assessment using the JBI tools (STable 2), the included quantitative studies had quality scores ranging from 4 to 9 (9 in total), whereas the qualitative studies had scores ranging from 4 to 8 (10 in total).

Common issues identified in quantitative studies were: (1) inconsistent and unverified measurement methods (8/12), (2) inadequate sample size (5/12) and (3) ambiguous descriptions for condition identification criteria (4/12); in qualitative studies were: (1) absence of cultural or theoretical frameworks (14/15), (2) misalignment between philosophical underpinnings and research methodology (13/15), (3) inadequate attention to the researcher's influence on the study and vice versa (12/15), and (4) insufficient representation of participant perspectives (12/15). No studies were excluded at this stage. Given the limited existing research in the field, all studies under consideration hold significant potential for contributing to the critical appraisal of instrument development, concept development, and hypothesis testing.

Overview of included studies

The characteristics observed in the included studies are summarised in Table 1. Quantitative studies consisted of 12 cross-sectional questionnaire surveys with sample sizes ranging from 162 to 3,834 participants. Most studies were with people with T2DM (42%), while some included both people with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) and T2DM (33%), and others involved people with T2DM from a larger non-communicable diseases (NCDs) population (25%). The majority of participants were adults aged 55–70 years (75%) and who received oral diabetic medications (58%). All qualitative studies were conducted with patients with T2DM; three studies also involved patients with T1DM or health care providers. Interviews were the most common data collection method (54%). Only 3 out of 26 studies were conducted in developing countries [26,27,28], with just one study from suburban areas in Ukraine [28], including participants from the low-resource environment [29].

Table 1 Summary of the included studies
Full size table

Result of narrative review

The literature screening process found that, while previous studies have used generic treatment burden scales to evaluate treatment burden in populations with NCDs, including patients with T2DM, there are unique concerns for people with T2DM [30, 31]. The PROMs currently used for measuring T2DM treatment burden lack a conceptual foundation with widely accepted consensus, making data synthesis challenging [7]. To critically appraise the extracted PROMs based on a specific and unified conceptual foundation, the narrative review of relevant qualitative studies was introduced.

The result of the thematic analysis represents a measurement framework for treatment burden in people with T2DM (Table 2). Seven themes had sufficient evidence to support their use as directly quantifiable indicators of the T2DM treatment burden, including financial [32,33,34,35,36,37], medication [35, 36, 38, 39], administrative [33, 35,36,37,38, 40, 41], lifestyle [33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42], healthcare [32, 35,36,37,38,39, 43, 44], time/travel [32, 33, 36, 43], and medical information [28, 34,35,36, 39, 43], and were categorised as core measurement themes. Sub-themes reflecting the antecedents [32, 36, 39, 41, 45] (patient characteristics, living with T2DM) and consequences [32, 33, 35,36,37, 41] (adherence to treatment, health and wellbeing and quality of life, interpersonal and social challenges) of the burden were encapsulated into associated measurement themes. Additionally, four novel themes related to T2DM treatment emerged, including health locus of control for T2DM treatment [33, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43], insulin or injection-related burden [36, 37], medication-related hypoglycaemia [28, 34], and glucose meters [37]. The final framework described themes and sub-themes, and also emphasised a circular interaction between core and associated measurement themes [11]. The PPIE panel provided feedback on the framework, with a CVI ranging from 0.81 to 1.00, indicating well acceptance (STable 3).

Table 2 The measurement framework of T2DM treatment burden
Full size table

Result of critical appraisal

In total, 10 PROMs were extracted from the included quantitative studies. Table 3 summarises these 10 instruments and shows the coverage of measurement themes for each within the measurement framework. The Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS, 7/7), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ, 6/7), and Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ, 7/7) covered a wide range of the core measurement themes. Notably, despite deficiencies in core measurement themes, the Diabetic Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ), Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL (DTR-QOL), Treatment Related Impact Measures: Diabetes and Diabetes Device (TRIM-D and TRIM-DD), and one of the Self-Made Questionnaires (SMQ-3) encompassed partial novel themes related to T2DM treatment. However, none of the included PROMs fully matched all the themes in this framework.

Table 3 Summary of the PROMs extracted
Full size table

All extracted PROMs were evaluated for their measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist (Table 4). The results indicate that PETS, TBQ, and MTBQ are appropriate PROMs for measuring the T2DM treatment burden, with the strongest evidence on measurement properties. These PROMs demonstrated that the majority of their measurement properties received a "positive" rating, with robust reliability, and content and structural validity. Notably, all PROMs (10/10) were rated "negative" in criterion validity, attributed to the lack of testing against a consensus gold standard metric for treatment burden. Additionally, most PROMs (8/10) were rated "negative" in terms of responsiveness, due to their limited application in longitudinal studies.

Table 4 Result of critical appraisal (COSMIN checklist)
Full size table

Discussion

Call for a specific and unified measurement framework

A total of 10 PROMs were extracted from the systematic search and evaluated for their measurement properties. During the searching and screening stage, heterogeneity was found in the research objectives, instruments of the included quantitative surveys, and the measurement structures of these PROMs. While previous studies have used generic treatment burden scales to evaluate treatment burden in populations with NCDs, including patients with T2DM, there are unique concerns for people with T2DM [30, 31]. The PROMs currently used for measuring T2DM treatment burden lack a conceptual foundation with widely accepted consensus [7]. This has led to variations in the number of dimensions measured and the outcome paradigms utilised for measurement. This heterogeneity has been previously reported by Lesage et al., highlighting the challenges in conducting outcome data synthesis [9]. To address this, a convergent segregated mixed-methods approach was introduced [13, 14].

To critically appraise the extracted PROMs based on a specific and unified conceptual foundation, a narrative review of relevant qualitative studies was employed. Thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data, including reported qualitative findings and item descriptions from PROMs. This analysis refined existing knowledge [11, 15, 16] to elucidate the concept of treatment burden, with a specific focus on T2DM care. The measurement framework in Table 2 indicates that seven themes were categorised as core measurement themes. These themes represent issues of T2DM treatment burden that can be directly reflected by PROMs, evident in previous qualitative studies and utilised in existing T2DM treatment burden measurements [46]. While the core measurement themes encompass significant components of treatment workload and patient burdens, the associated measurement themes primarily consist of components that do not directly reflect these burdens. The associated measurement themes typically reflect factors that influence or are influenced by the treatment burden in people with T2DM [27, 47,48,49].

Due to limited evidence, the review categorised the four emergent themes (Health locus of control for T2DM treatment, Insulin- or injection-related burden, Medication-related Hypoglycaemia, Glucose meters) identified in the narrative review as associated measurement themes. These themes relate to specific burdens in people with T2DM that are inadequately captured by existing generic patient-reported outcome measures. Feedback on these constructs was sought from the panel with PPIE for framework validation.

Instrument selection

The selection of instrument impacts research methodology and the quality of findings [18]; the theoretical underpinnings and developmental principles of the selected instrument are pivotal to the validity of outcomes [46]. In our narrative review, the measurement framework was constructed to provide a conceptual foundation for the critical appraisal of the extracted PROMs measuring T2DM treatment burden. This framework, combined with the COSMIN checklist, was used for the critical appraisal of the included PROMs. The PROMs were stratified to facilitate a comparison according to the number of themes covered in the measurement framework (Table 3) and the number of "positive" ratings received in the COSMIN checklist (Table 4) by each instrument. The three PROMs with the highest total counts, combining the number of themes covered and "positive" ratings, were PETS, TBQ, and MTBQ. These PROMs, in the top tertile stratification, demonstrated superior applicability for measuring T2DM treatment burden.

PETS (Rogers, 2017) [32, 50] was identified as the most comprehensive among the included PROMs, capturing the majority of core measurements outlined in the framework and allowing for segregated score calculations [51]. PETS also partially addressed hypothesis testing in the T2DM population through exploratory analyses comparing mean subscale scores across groups with varying levels of glycaemic control [32]. It was the only one out of the ten PROMs (Table 4) received "positive" ratings in PROM development and hypothesis testing. However, the evidence supporting these domains of PETS is not strong enough. The PETS instrument was initially designed to measure the treatment burden in people with chronic diseases in general, not specifically for T2DM. PROM development and hypothesis testing related to the T2DM population were conducted in subsequent studies. The differences in disease-specific concerns may result in the omission of certain T2DM-specific issues on treatment burden, echoing the discussion in the last Sect. [9]. Furthermore, the validation of PETS primarily involved participants with higher education levels from well-resourced settings, suggesting potential limitations in applying PETS in under-resourced environments or developing countries [51]. Comparable to PETS, the TBQ (Tran, 2014) [27, 49, 52, 53] and MTBQ (Duncan, 2018) [48, 54] demonstrated similarly broad thematic coverage and substantial instrument validation. Nonetheless, these instruments also displayed deficiencies in their developmental and validation processes concerning T2DM-specific PROMs.

DTR-QoL [55] [55], TRIMs (Brod, 2009) [47], DTBQ (Ishii, 2018) [56], SMQ-3 (González-Saldivar, 2022) [26], and SMQ-2 (Blüher, 2015) [57], exhibited intermediate levels of thematic coverage and received moderate positive ratings on the COSMIN checklist. A predominant limitation for this group of PROMs is their circumscribed thematic scope, coupled with insufficient structural validation pertaining to T2DM treatment burden. SMQ-1 (Vijan, 2005) [58] and SMQ-4 (Morris, 2021) [48] demonstrated limited thematic coverage and an inadequate instrument development process. Being self-developed PROMs with insufficient validation, these instruments are not recommended for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM.

Limitations and inspiration

Given the preliminary search results in this review, which indicated that previous research on treatment burden and instrument development was primarily conducted in developed or well-resourced settings, three Chinese databases were also searched in addition to the commonly used medical databases. This aimed to include complementary sources from developing countries and low-resource settings. However, the result shows that only a limited of the included studies (11.5%, including two quantitative and one qualitative study) were conducted in developing countries or low-resource settings [26,27,28]. Moreover, the results of the JBI quality assessment show that all these studies had a high risk of bias. Further research with high-quality input from patients and healthcare professionals in low-resource settings is essential to create a specialised measurement paradigm that accurately represents the treatment burden in individuals with T2DM in such contexts.

Additionally, 8 out of 10 PROMs were rated "negative" in the domain of responsiveness. The majority of the included quantitative studies were cross-sectional surveys, which hindered the evaluation of the instruments' responsiveness. This reflects the lack of longitudinal studies in current treatment burden research, obstructing the refinement of measurements and causes existing instruments to fall short in assessing changes in treatment burden over time. On the other hand, the absence of a current "gold standard" for measuring treatment burden resulted in all evaluated PROMs (10/10) being rated "negative" in criterion validity. These limitations suggest a critical need for the development and validation of a consensus-based standard and the implementation of longitudinal studies to improve the accuracy and responsiveness of treatment burden assessments. Alternatively, developing instruments with a specific and unified framework will facilitate further measurement of T2DM treatment burden and synthesis of research outcomes.

Finally, this review evaluated PROMs solely based on their development process and measurement properties. In addition to these internal parameters, it is crucial to consider how the measured levels of treatment burden correlate with other healthcare indicators, such as blood glucose control or patients' experiences [59]. These correlations should also be taken into consideration when determining the suitability of a particular instrument for a specific context.

Conclusions

Understanding treatment burden is essential to patient-centred care. This systematic review provides evidence for the currently superior options for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM. The results indicate that PETS, TBQ, and MTBQ demonstrated their robust evidence for measuring T2DM treatment burden. However, as generic PROMs, clinicians should be aware of their limitations and consider the specific context when using these instruments, especially in developing countries or under-resourced settings.

Availability of data and materials

This systematic review utilised data from previously published studies, all of which are accessible through their respective journals and databases. The data supporting the conclusions of this review are available in the cited articles, and/or can be obtained from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Magliano D, Boyko EJ. IDF diabetes atlas. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581934/. Accessed 20 Apr 2023.

  2. Nathan DM. The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9–16. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dobler CC, Harb N, Maguire CA, Armour CL, Coleman C, Murad MH. Treatment burden should be included in clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2018;363:k4065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitty CJM, MacEwen C, Goddard A, et al. Rising to the challenge of multimorbidity. BMJ. 2020;368:l6964. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6964.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Eton DT, Elraiyah TA, Yost KJ, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported measures of burden of treatment in three chronic diseases. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2013;4:7–20. https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.s44694.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. May C, Victor M Montori, Frances S Mair. We need minimally disruptive medicine. BMJ. 2009;339:b280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yu Isenberg K, Gray GD, Foley C, et al. Patient perspectives on the burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment. Diabetes. 2018;67(Supplement_1):726-P. https://doi.org/10.2337/db18-726-P.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wee PJL, Kwan YH, Loh DHF, et al. Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for diabetes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8):e25002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lesage A, Leclère B, Moret L, Le Glatin C. Decreasing patient-reported burden of treatment: a systematic review of quantitative interventional studies. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Golda N, Beeson S, Kohli N, Merrill B. Analysis of the patient experience measure. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(4):645–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2017.03.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sav A, Salehi A, Mair FS, McMillan SS. Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0411-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):121–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809982/. Accessed 20 Apr 2023.

  15. Eton DT, Ridgeway JL, Egginton JS, et al. Finalizing a measurement framework for the burden of treatment in complex patients with chronic conditions. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2015;6:117–26. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S78955.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. May CR, Eton DT, Boehmer K, et al. Rethinking the patient: using burden of treatment theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14: 281. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL. Accessed 30 Apr 2023.

  19. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6): e12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. CAIS. 2014;34. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03412.

  21. Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615z.000000000329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):160940691773384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kotecha D, Ahmed A, Calvert M, Lencioni M, Terwee CB, Lane DA. Patient-reported outcomes for quality of life assessment in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of measurement properties. PLoS One. 2016;11(11): e0165790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165790.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. González-Saldivar G, Millan-Alanis JM, González-González JG, et al. Treatment burden and perceptions of glucose-lowering therapy among people living with diabetes. Prim Care Diabetes. 2022;16(4):568–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2022.04.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Han J. Mediating effect of illness perception on health literacy and treatment burden in elderly diabetic patients. Dissertation, Yanbian University. 2022.

  28. Mandrik O, Severens JL, Doroshenko O, et al. Impact of hypoglycemia on daily life of type 2 diabetes patients in Ukraine. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:249–57. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S39133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. van Zyl C, Badenhorst M, Hanekom S, Heine M. Unravelling 'low-resource settings': a systematic scoping review with qualitative content analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005190.

  30. Spencer-Bonilla G, Quiñones AR, Montori VM. Assessing the burden of treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(10):1141–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4117-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Orozco-Beltrán D, Artola S, Jansà M, Lopez La, de Torre-Casares M, Fuster E. Impact of hypoglycemic episodes on health-related quality of life of type-2 diabetes mellitus patients: development and validation of a specific QoLHYPO© questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0875-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Spencer-Bonilla G, Serrano V, Gao C, et al. Patient work and treatment burden in type 2 diabetes: a mixed-methods study. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021;5(2):359–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bustillos BD, Sharkey JR. “I try to keep that sugar down.” Experiences of homebound older adults with type 2 diabetes: barriers to self-management. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;39(1):69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/21551197.2019.1695037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Crutzen S, van den Born-Bondt T, Denig P, Taxis K. Type 2 diabetes patients’ views on prevention of hypoglycaemia - a mixed methods study investigating self-management issues and self-identified causes of hypoglycaemia. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01466-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Haider S, El Kawkgi O, Clark J, et al. Beyond hemoglobin A1c: a videographic analysis of conversations about quality of life and treatment burden during clinical encounters for diabetes care. Endocrine. 2021;73(3):573–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-021-02757-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Litterbach E, Holmes-Truscott E, Pouwer F, Speight J, Hendrieckx C. “I wish my health professionals understood that it’s not just all about your HbA1c !”. Qualitative responses from the second Diabetes MILES - Australia (MILES-2) study. Diabet Med. 2020;37(6):971–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tanenbaum ML, Kane NS, Kenowitz J, Gonzalez JS. Diabetes distress from the patient’s perspective: qualitative themes and treatment regimen differences among adults with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(6):1060–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.04.023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bohlen K, Scoville E, Shippee ND, May CR, Montori VM. Overwhelmed patients: a videographic analysis of how patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians articulate and address treatment burden during clinical encounters. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(1):47–9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-1082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Espinoza P, Varela CA, Vargas IE, et al. The burden of treatment in people living with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study of patients and their primary care clinicians. PLoS One. 2020;15(10 October): e0241485. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241485.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Fritschi C, Kim MJ, Srimoragot M, Jun J, Sanchez LE, Sharp LK. “Something tells me i can’t do that no more”: experiences with real-time glucose and activity monitoring among underserved black women with type 2 diabetes. Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care. 2022;48(2):78–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106221076042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kristensen MAT, Guassora AD, Arreskov AB, Waldorff FB, Hølge-Hazelton B. “I’ve put diabetes completely on the shelf till the mental stuff is in place”. How patients with doctor-assessed impaired self-care perceive disease, self-care, and support from general practitioners. A qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36(3):342–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2018.1487436.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Vijan S, Stuart NS, Fitzgerald JT, et al. Barriers to following dietary recommendations in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2005;22(1):32–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01342.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cotugno JD, Ferguson M, Harden H, et al. “I wish they could be in my shoes”: patients’ insights into tertiary health care for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1647–55. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S91214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Dambha-Miller H, Silarova B, Irving G, Kinmonth AL, Griffin SJ. Patients’ views on interactions with practitioners for type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal qualitative study in primary care over 10 years. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(666):e36–43. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X693917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nair KM, Levine MAH, Lohfeld LH, Gerstein HC. “I take what I think works for me”: a qualitative study to explore patient perception of diabetes treatment benefits and risks. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;14(2):e251-259 Published 7/27/2007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. Guideline for selecting instruments for a core outcome set. https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/guideline-selecting-proms-cos/. Accessed 13 Apr 2023.

  47. Brod M, Hammer M, Christensen T, Lessard S, Bushnell DM. Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7: 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Morris JE, Roderick PJ, Harris S, et al. Treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity: cross-sectional study with exploration of a single-item measure. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(706):e381–90. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0883.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Sav A, Whitty JA, McMillan SS, et al. Treatment burden and chronic illness: who is at most risk?. Patient. 2016;9(6):559–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0175-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rogers EA, Yost KJ, Rosedahl JK, et al. Validating the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a patient-reported measure of treatment burden, in people with diabetes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2017;8:143–56. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S140851.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Eton DT, Linzer M, Boehm DH, et al. Deriving and validating a brief measure of treatment burden to assess person-centered healthcare quality in primary care: a multi-method study. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01291-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Herzig L, Zeller A, Pasquier J, et al. Factors associated with patients’ and GPs’ assessment of the burden of treatment in multimorbid patients: a cross-sectional study in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-0974-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Tran VT, Harrington M, Montori VM, Barnes C, Wicks P, Ravaud P. Adaptation and validation of the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) in English using an internet platform. BMC Med. 2014;12: 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Duncan P, Murphy M, Man M-S, Chaplin K, Gaunt D, Salisbury C. Development and validation of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ). BMJ Open. 2018;8(4): e019413. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Ishii H. Development and psychometric validation of the Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL (DTR-QOL) questionnaire. J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):556–63. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.665111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ishii H, Shin K, Tosaki T, et al. Reproducibility and validity of a questionnaire measuring treatment burden on patients with type 2 diabetes: Diabetic Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ). Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(3):1001–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0414-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Blüher M, Kurz I, Dannenmaier S, Dworak M. Pill Burden in Patients with type 2 diabetes in Germany: subanalysis from the prospective, noninterventional PROVIL study. Clin Diabetes. 2015;33(2):55–61. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaclin.33.2.55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Vijan S, Hayward RA, Ronis DL, Hofer TP. Brief report: the burden of diabetes therapy: implications for the design of effective patient-centered treatment regimens. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):479–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0117.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hu XJ, Wang HHX, Li YT, et al. Healthcare needs, experiences and treatment burden in primary care patients with multimorbidity: an evaluation of process of care from patients’ perspectives. Health Expect. 2022;25(1):203–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also like to extend our gratitude to all members of the patient and public involvement and engagement panel for their valuable contributions.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province (No. 2023A1515010358), the Special Funds for Science and Technology of Guangdong Province (No. STKJ2023007, 210715106900989, 210713116871875), the Medical Science and Technology Research Fund Project of Guangdong Province (A2023422), and the Education Science Research Programme (Special for Higher Education) of Guangdong Province (2022GXJK195).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Family Medicine Centre, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, 515000, China

    Kai Lin, Xinxin Ji & Rouyan Li

  2. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, 6027, Australia

    Kai Lin, Jacques Oosthuizen & Moira Sim

  3. General Practice, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, 100034, China

    Mi Yao

  4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Perth, 6027, Australia

    Lesley Andrew

  5. Endocrinology Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, 515000, China

    Yongsong Chen

Authors
  1. Kai Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mi Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xinxin Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rouyan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lesley Andrew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jacques Oosthuizen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Moira Sim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yongsong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.L., M.Y., X.J., L.A., J.O., and M.S. developed the search strategy. K.L., M.Y., X.J., and R.L. conducted the literature search, screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. As guarantors, L.A., J.O., Y.C., and M.S. ensured data integrity and analysis accuracy. K.L. and M.Y. drafted the manuscript. All authors participated in editing, reviewing, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Moira Sim or Yongsong Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not required, as this review exclusively included previously published data. All the studies included in this review were published in international, peer-reviewed journals. The researchers assessed the ethical considerations and adherence to relevant regulations of all included publications.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, K., Yao, M., Ji, X. et al. Measuring treatment burden in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): a mixed-methods systematic review. BMC Prim. Care 25, 206 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02461-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02461-x

Keywords

BMC Primary Care

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us