Putting person-centred psychosocial diabetes care into practice: two psychosocial care pathways based on outcome preferences of people with diabetes and healthcare professionals.

Background: Diabetes increases the risk of psychosocial health problems. Person-centred psychosocial care is therefore advocated. However, several barriers to implementation exist, including uncertainty about how to approach psychosocial problems in consultations.

Objective: We aimed to explore which psychosocial outcomes patients and healthcare professionals consider important and whether certain characteristics are associated with this. We propose strategies for facilitating psychosocial diabetes care on this basis.

Methods: The results of an international Delphi study aimed at achieving multi-stakeholder consensus on a diabetes outcome set were analysed. We compared the importance ratings of the two stakeholder groups for each psychosocial outcome. A multivariable linear regression analysis tested whether certain characteristics would predict the importance attributed to outcomes that were not generally considered important.

Findings: Patients and healthcare professionals agreed on the importance of regularly assessing psychological well-being, diabetes distress and diabetes-specific quality of life, while they regarded it as less important to monitor depression, anxiety, eating problems, social support and sexual health. Being a woman, younger and living with type 1 diabetes were associated with considering it important to assess eating problems.

Conclusions: We propose two psychosocial care pathways that reflect the outcome preferences of patients and healthcare providers. They follow a stepped approach, starting with the assessment of psychological well-being and quality of life and proceeding from there.

Clinical implications: Adopting this approach can facilitate the implementation of person-centred psychosocial diabetes care by reducing the burden and making psychosocial issues more accessible. This approach should be tested for feasibility, safety and effectiveness.