2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress on clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          This study examined the effect of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) routinely to assess and address depressive symptoms and diabetes distress among adults with type 2 diabetes.

          Design

          A systematic review of published peer-reviewed studies.

          Data sources

          Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.

          Eligibility criteria

          Studies including adults with type 2 diabetes, published in English, from the inception of the databases to 24 February 2022 inclusive; and where the intervention included completion of a PROM of depressive symptoms and/or diabetes distress, with feedback of the responses to a healthcare professional.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          Using Covidence software, screening and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently with any disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

          Results

          The search identified 4512 citations, of which 163 full-text citations were assessed for eligibility, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies involved assessment of depressive symptoms only, two studies assessed diabetes distress only, and two studies assessed both. All studies had an associated cointervention. When depressive symptoms were assessed (n=7), a statistically significant between-group difference in depressive symptoms was observed in five studies; with a clinically significant ( >0.5%) between-group difference in HbA1c in two studies. When diabetes distress was assessed (n=4), one study demonstrated statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms and diabetes distress; with a clinically significant between-group difference in HbA1c observed in two studies.

          Conclusion

          Studies are sparse in which PROMs are used to assess and address depressive symptoms or diabetes distress during routine clinical care of adults with type 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to understand how to integrate PROMs into clinical care efficiently and determine appropriate interventions to manage identified problem areas.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42020200246.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                24 May 2022
                : 12
                : 5
                : e054650
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of General Practice , The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]departmentNHMRC CRE in Digital Technology to Transform Chronic Disease Outcomes , The Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ]departmentThe Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes , Diabetes Victoria , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ]departmentSchool of Psychology , Deakin University , Geelong, Victoria, Australia
                [5 ]departmentFaculty of Psychology , SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities , Warszaw, Poland
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Endocrinology , Beaumont Hospital , Dublin, Ireland
                [7 ]departmentMelbourne Medical School , The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [8 ]departmentCentre for Cancer Research , University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Rita McMorrow, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; rita.mcmorrow@ 123456unimelb.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2835-9504
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1268-3166
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-6336
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2153-3482
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-054650
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054650
                9134162
                35613752
                beba7e48-1d77-4100-872e-197b0ab9b35f
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 June 2021
                : 11 April 2022
                Categories
                Diabetes and Endocrinology
                1506
                1843
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                %20type%202">diabetes mellitus,type 2,depression,patient reported outcome measures
                Medicine
                %20type%202">diabetes mellitus, type 2, depression, patient reported outcome measures

                Comments

                Comment on this article