Tue Helms Andersen, Thomas Møller Marcussen, Ole Nørgaard
{"title":"Information needs for GPs on type 2 diabetes in Western countries: a systematic review.","authors":"Tue Helms Andersen, Thomas Møller Marcussen, Ole Nørgaard","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most people with type 2 diabetes receive treatment in primary care by GPs who are not specialised in diabetes. Thus, it is important to uncover the most essential information needs regarding type 2 diabetes in general practice.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify information needs related to type 2 diabetes for GPs.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review focused on literature relating to Western countries.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched from inception to January 2024. Two researchers conducted the selection process, and citation searches were performed to identify any relevant articles missed by the database search. Quality appraisal was conducted with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Meaning units were coded individually, grouped into categories, and then studies were summarised within the context of these categories using narrative synthesis. An evidence map was created to highlight research gaps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine included studies revealed eight main categories and 36 subcategories of information needs. Categories were organised into a comprehensive hierarchical model of information needs, suggesting 'Knowledge of guidelines' and 'Reasons for referral' as general information needs alongside more specific needs on 'Medication', 'Management', 'Complications', 'Diagnosis', 'Risk factors', and 'Screening for diabetes'. The evidence map provides readers with the opportunity to explore the characteristics of the included studies in detail.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review provides GPs, policymakers, and researchers with a hierarchical model of information and educational needs for GPs, and an evidence map showing gaps in the current literature. Information needs about clinical guidelines and reasons for referral to specialised care overlapped with needs for more specific information.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e749-e757"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11388096/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0531","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Most people with type 2 diabetes receive treatment in primary care by GPs who are not specialised in diabetes. Thus, it is important to uncover the most essential information needs regarding type 2 diabetes in general practice.
Aim: To identify information needs related to type 2 diabetes for GPs.
Design and setting: Systematic review focused on literature relating to Western countries.
Method: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched from inception to January 2024. Two researchers conducted the selection process, and citation searches were performed to identify any relevant articles missed by the database search. Quality appraisal was conducted with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Meaning units were coded individually, grouped into categories, and then studies were summarised within the context of these categories using narrative synthesis. An evidence map was created to highlight research gaps.
Results: Thirty-nine included studies revealed eight main categories and 36 subcategories of information needs. Categories were organised into a comprehensive hierarchical model of information needs, suggesting 'Knowledge of guidelines' and 'Reasons for referral' as general information needs alongside more specific needs on 'Medication', 'Management', 'Complications', 'Diagnosis', 'Risk factors', and 'Screening for diabetes'. The evidence map provides readers with the opportunity to explore the characteristics of the included studies in detail.
Conclusion: This systematic review provides GPs, policymakers, and researchers with a hierarchical model of information and educational needs for GPs, and an evidence map showing gaps in the current literature. Information needs about clinical guidelines and reasons for referral to specialised care overlapped with needs for more specific information.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.