Skip to main content
BMJ Open logoLink to BMJ Open
. 2024 May 2;14(5):e081385. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081385

Exploring type 2 diabetes self-management practices in rural Bangladesh: facilitators, barriers and expectations—a qualitative study protocol

Hasina Akhter Chowdhury 1,2,, Anju E Joham 3,4, Ashraful Kabir 1, A K M Fazlur Rahman 2, Liaquat Ali 5, Cheryce L Harrison 6, Baki Billah 1
PMCID: PMC11086285  PMID: 38697759

Abstract

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global public health crisis impacting low-income and middle-income countries such as Bangladesh. While self-management is encouraged for individuals with T2DM, there is a significant lack of knowledge regarding the factors of facilitators, barriers and expectations associated with T2DM self-management in Bangladesh. This research aims to investigate the potential elements that support, impede and are anticipated in the effective practice of self-management for T2DM in rural areas of Bangladesh.

Methods and analysis

This study will use an exploratory qualitative approach. 16 focus group discussions, 13 in-depth interviews and 9 key informant interviews will be conducted among multilevel stakeholders, including people with T2DM, their caregivers, healthcare providers, health managers/administrators and policy planners. Interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed, translated and analysed using thematic analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

This research project has been approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (project reference number: 39483) and the Ethical Review Committee of the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (Memo: CIPRB/ERC/2023/14). Research findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Published reports will include group data. Individual data privacy will be strictly maintained.

Keywords: diabetes & endocrinology, qualitative research, public health


STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY.

  • This research study will employ a multistage cluster sampling approach to select study sites, aiming to thoroughly understand the self-management practices of people with diabetes in rural Bangladesh.

  • This qualitative study’s inclusive design will collect data from participants with diverse roles and backgrounds and from diverse regions throughout the country, enhancing the validity and trustworthiness of the study’s findings.

  • This study will be conducted in Bangladesh, a country with a globally high prevalence of diabetes, where the majority of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus live in rural areas with limited resources.

  • Though the study’s participants come from diverse regions of the country, certain local factors may impact the results to limit their wider generalisability.

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a significant impact on affected individuals, with a detrimental impact on quality of life and a substantial healthcare burden. In addition, it carries significant risk of major microvascular and macrovascular complications, morbidity, mortality and even premature death.1 In recent decades, T2DM has become a worldwide epidemic, disproportionately affecting adults in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), which account for an estimated 79.4% of the global population with T2DM.2 Furthermore, compared with high-income countries, people living in LMICs have poor access to health insurance or publicly available medical services, with out-of-pocket health expenditures reflecting a greater proportion of income.3 In 2021, diabetes-related health expenditures were 966 billion US$ globally,4 imposing a significant health and economic burden on individuals, their families and healthcare systems.5–10

In response to the magnitude of the disease burden, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) strongly advocates the importance of self-management in controlling diabetes.2 In the context of T2DM, self-management is defined as the ability of patients to collaborate with healthcare teams and social networks to cope with their health conditions.11 Studies have demonstrated that effective self-management is the cornerstone of T2DM control,11–17 necessitating that people with T2DM adhere daily to specific behavioural actions. These actions include regularly monitoring blood glucose levels, adhering to a prescribed dietary regimen, being physically active, taking medications (insulin or oral) as prescribed and practising proper foot care.18 19 However, research conducted on diabetes indicates that diabetes self-management is a challenging endeavour globally.20

Bangladesh is an LMIC and the eighth most prevalent for T2DM globally, which affects 13.1 million (12.5%) of its population. This number is projected to increase to 22.3 million by 2045.21 22 Despite the high prevalence, the country’s prevention, control and management awareness is suboptimal,23 24 owing partly to a healthcare service delivery system not well-equipped to meet the rising disease burden.3 25 Approximately 61.8% of the Bangladeshi population live in rural areas,26 which increases risk factors for T2DM and poorer health outcomes compared with those living in urban areas.27 For example, a recent hospital-based study in Bangladesh showed that glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control was poorer among rural residents (73.7%) than urban residents (57.3%).28 Further, among insulin-dependent patients (65%), 62% had poor HbA1c control (HbA1c >8%).3 Another study in rural Bangladesh showed that 75% of people with diabetes were neglectful in managing diabetes, and 78% had poor adherence to blood glucose monitoring.23 Thus, there is an urgent need to explore factors impacting diabetes self-management practices among people with T2DM in rural Bangladesh.

Previous qualitative investigations in various countries/regions, including the USA, Europe, the UK, Latin America, Africa and South Asia, have evaluated individual, environmental and systemic barriers to self-management practices of individuals with T2DM.29–38 Individual barriers to self-management practices pose significant challenges to adapt to a new lifestyle following the diagnosis of diabetes39 40 including, suboptimal health-related knowledge,41 cultural beliefs,42 a failure to grasp the significance of self-management practices,41 adherence to alternate medications,43 financial constraints44 and lack of social and familial support.45 46 Environmental factors such as disenfranchisement42; limited amenities and an unsafe environment47 and poor weather conditions such as rain, floods, humidity and landslides,48 which may deter physical activity contribute to poor diabetes self-management. In addition, limited access to medications due to transportation constraints during the monsoon season in remote areas has a further deleterious impact on diabetes management and self-management.48 Systemic factors include limited access to patient education resources,49 lack of understanding of the management care plan,50 irregular supply of medicine at health facilities,51 lack of continuity of healthcare and lack of supportive relationships between healthcare service providers and patients.50 On the other hand, family support, cooking healthy meals, encouraging exercise, assisting with medication purchases and facilitating attendance at healthcare appointments are factors that help people with T2DM self-manage their diabetes.52 53 Previous studies suggest that self-management practices are also greatly influenced by a patient’s perceived expectations54 55 of self-management education, social support, problem-solving skills and self-efficacy.56

Until recently, studies were limited in addressing the facilitators and barriers to diabetes self-management practices in the context of multilevel stakeholders (eg, people with T2DM, their family members/caregivers, healthcare service providers, health managers/administrators and policy planners) interacting with and supporting patients with T2DM. Multilevel stakeholders provide opportunities to explore diabetes self-management from various viewpoints and then develop programmes with specific recommendations for diabetes self-management. No study has evaluated the facilitators and barriers to T2DM self-management practices from a multi-stakeholder perspective in Bangladesh, a country with a globally high prevalence of diabetes, where the majority of people with T2DM reside in rural areas facing unique healthcare challenges and limited resources. Additionally, no study has applied a theoretical framework to guide a comprehensive analysis of self-management practice determinants in rural Bangladesh or similar settings elsewhere. Moreover, the literature has not addressed various stakeholders’ expectations for conducting an effective self-management intervention programme in rural Bangladesh.

To address these gaps, this qualitative study explores the potential facilitators, barriers and expectations of effective T2DM self-management practices in rural Bangladesh from a multilevel stakeholders’ perspective. The information will help develop need-oriented self-management intervention programmes for rural Bangladeshi people with T2DM.

Specific objectives

  1. To explore facilitators and barriers to diabetes self-management practices from the perspective of patients and their caregivers in rural Bangladesh.

  2. To assess the constraints and opportunities of diabetes self-management practices from the healthcare service provider’s perspective in rural Bangladesh.

  3. To understand how diabetes self-management practices can be improved in rural Bangladesh (eg, culturally appropriate health information/programmes, the use of guidelines, the promotion of a healthy lifestyle, medical adherence improvements).

This study will explore facilitators and barriers to diabetes self-management practices in rural Bangladesh from a multilevel perspective. In addition, the expectation, implementation and adoption capacity of diabetes self-management programmes in a rural community will be assessed, which is expected to influence T2DM-related service provision in the country (table 1).

Table 1.

Overview of study objectives, discussion points, themes and data sources

Objectives Discussion points Themes to be explored Tools/data sources
Objective 1: To explore the barriers and facilitators of diabetes self-management practices from the perspective of patients and their caregivers in rural Bangladesh
  • Profiling the community

  • Facilitators of diabetes self-management practices

  • Barriers to diabetes self-management practices

  • Knowledge of diabetes self-management strategies, motivational factors, responsibilities, social networks, cultural values, resource allocation, family support, environmental factors, policy-level service utilisation challenges and support for diabetes self-management practices

Focus group discussions
Objective 2: To assess the constraints and opportunities of diabetes self-management practices from the healthcare service provider perspective in rural Bangladesh
  • Identification of challenges to performing diabetes self-management practices

  • Stewardship, trust and supervision capacity of healthcare service providers to accomplish self-management practices

  • Geographical access to healthcare, service professional interaction with patients and support, availability and accessibility of services, lack of information and health expenditure

  • Healthcare service professionals interacting and supporting people with T2DM, including patient-centred care, trust/friendly relationships, accessibility to information, service provision and the highest utilisation of resources

In-depth interviews and key informant interviews
Objective 3: To understand how the provision of diabetes self-management practices can be improved in rural Bangladesh (eg, culturally appropriate health information/programme, use of guidelines, promoting a healthy lifestyle, improving medical adherence)
  • Expectation, implementation and adoption capacity of diabetes self-management programme

  • Attitude and practices of the T2DM communities, service gaps and any expectations for a programme of diabetes self-management practices and their adoption capabilities (eg, community interest, distance, cost, session timing flexibility, social ties, incentive gifts)

Focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and key informant interviews

*Objectives: To provide a picture of potential facilitators, barriers and expectations of effective T2DM self-management practices to promote self-management intervention programs in rural Bangladesh.

T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

Study settings and the health system in Bangladesh

The health system in Bangladesh is pluralistic–multiple bodies and providers in the government or public sectors, private operators for-profit, non-governmental organisations and charities (not-for-profit) or donor agencies (developing partners/aids). These entities play roles in applying a mixed system of medical practices under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Local Government Rural Development and Co-operatives57 (figure 1). In addition to the above-mentioned providers, informal healthcare providers such as traditional healers, faith healers, herbalists, unqualified practitioners, drug sellers and homeopaths play a significant role nationwide.26 The administrative structure in Bangladesh comprises 8 divisions, 4 metropolitan cities, 64 districts, 495 upazilas (sub-districts), 4571 union parishads, 40 977 wards and approximately 87 310 villages58 (described in online supplemental figure S1). Based on this, the governing authorities provide a wide range of facilities and services at the tertiary, secondary and primary levels. Tertiary facilities are located at national, divisional and some district levels, offering specialised and advanced care. In addition to divisional levels, the secondary facilities exist at all district levels and in many upazila levels, providing specialised care as well as primary healthcare. Finally, the primary care level exists at the upazila levels, offering basic healthcare services and limited secondary care through the upazila health complexes (the first-level public hospitals) and using promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative approaches. A community clinic, the lowest level of static healthcare facility located at the village/ward level, provides outpatient services with promotive and preventive care.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Health service delivery organisational structure in Bangladesh. Adapted from Bangladesh Health System Review.57 NGO, non-government organisation.

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2023-081385supp001.pdf (606.9KB, pdf)

Despite multiple facilities, public sector diabetes care quality is impaired by a lack of resources, staff and equipment, adversely affecting service provision.25 26 59 On the other hand, most private for-profit sector is poorly designed, and the informal sector mostly comprises unqualified, traditional and homeopathic practitioners.59 Diabetes care in Bangladesh is mainly provided by the Bangladesh Diabetic Association, with centres in every district serving as a not-for-profit sector.60 However, access to this care is impacted by individual and environmental barriers such as cost, time, transportation, crowded conditions and distance, particularly for those living in remote or rural areas. Therefore, self-management practices and family support are essential for people with T2DM in rural areas, which can help them use their skills to manage their diabetes effectively.60 61

Study site selection

Bangladesh is geographically divided into eight administrative regions, known as divisions (the first layer), which are further subdivided into districts (the second layer). Each district has several upazilas (the third layer), and each upazila comprises several union parishads (the lowest layer). Each union parishad is further divided into 15–20 villages (approximately).62 The sampling process to be used is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Sampling method for focus group discussions.

This study will use a multistage cluster sampling approach. The prevalence of T2DM in Bangladesh is highest in the Dhaka and Chittagong divisions. The remaining divisions (ie, Rajshahi, Khulna, Barishal, Sylhet, Rangpur and Mymensingh) have a similar prevalence.63 One of the two divisions with the highest prevalence and three of the remaining six divisions will be studied. From the four selected divisions, one district within each will be chosen (figure 3). Then, one upazila from each chosen district will be picked. A union parishad will then be selected from the previously identified upazilas. Finally, villages will be selected from each union parishad (figure 2). All of the above selections will be conducted randomly. Notably, the rural population across Bangladesh is typically characterised by similar educational attainment, unemployment, income, reliance on small-scale farming or daily labour and healthcare access.64 The commencement of this study programme is scheduled to begin in June 2023 and will conclude in May 2024. The detailed study timeline is illustrated in online supplemental figure S2.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Study site map.

Study design and population

An exploratory, qualitative approach will be used in this study (figure 4). Qualitative study design focuses on understanding the social world through listening to participants’ viewpoints65 and considering their experiential knowledge. This is useful for understanding unknown phenomena in a problem or generating new ideas for research, such as factors affecting health behaviours and health service utilisation relevant to healthcare practice and policy.66 67 The data collection methods used will be via focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews (IDIs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) to enable exploration of various aspects of T2DM self-management practices, particularly focusing on social context facilitators and barriers by gathering perspectives on viewpoints, thoughts, expectations and suggestions65 68 from multilevel stakeholders. Data will be collected by interviewers (eg, medical graduates and research assistants) who are experienced in conducting qualitative interviews at various stakeholder levels.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

The overall research process through three distinct. CC, Community Clinic; FGDs, focus group discussions; IDIs, in-depth interviews; KIIs, key informant interviews; NGO, non-government organisation; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; UHC, Upazila Health Complex, CHCP, community health care provider, UH&FPO, upazila health and family planning officer.

The FGDs will be conducted among patients with T2DM and their caregivers.69 The FGDs will aim to define key themes and points of consensus or disagreement gathered through interactions70 and draw on the participants’ individual perceptions and choice of language.71

The aim of the IDIs will be to ensure a mix of staff roles with local-level healthcare service providers, both formal (eg, registered medical officers, facility managers, nurses, pharmacists, nutritionists/dieticians and community healthcare providers) and informal (eg, kabirajs, faith healers and unqualified allopathic doctors). These are rural Bangladesh’s major healthcare service providers.72

The KIIs will be conducted with tertiary-level endocrinologists and/or diabetologists, nutritionists, organisation heads, public health practitioners/experts and policy planners to understand and explore their views on perceived facilitators and barriers to T2DM self-management practices in rural Bangladesh.

Recruitment and sample size determination

Participants for the FGDs will be recruited from selected villages (figure 2). A list of patients with T2DM will be prepared by visiting households in these villages. An explanatory statement with a brief description of the study and its objective will be distributed among potential participants. On showing interest, a potential participant will undergo eligibility screening. Data will be collected from eligible participants on signing a consent form.

A purposive sampling method will be used to select IDI and KII participants. A student investigator will contact participants from healthcare facilities for IDIs/KIIs via telephone, face-to-face or email communications and an appointment for an interview at their office will be made.

The number of interviews (sample size) will be determined following the principle of data saturation, that is, the interviews will be completed when no further new information, dimensions or ideas emerge, as outlined by Guest et al.73 A stepwise technique will be followed to reach data saturation.74 We propose conducting 16 FGDs, 13 IDIs and 9 KIIs to achieve data saturation based on Guest et al’s recommended approach73 (figure 4). This number could vary depending on the observed data redundancy during collection. This will comprise multiple interviewers simultaneously conducting interviews and performing initial/axial coding.75 After two-thirds of the interviews, the research team will perform preliminary coding to determine whether new information, dimensions or themes emerge.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

People with T2DM and their caregivers

People with T2DM in this study refer to those who are (1) living in a rural setting and aged ≥18 years, (2) diagnosed with T2DM at least 1 year prior and (3) currently under the care of a registered physician. Patients will be excluded based on the following criteria: patients with severe illnesses or those diagnosed with cognitive or mental impairments.

A caregiver refers to a spouse or immediate family member who (1) lives with an individual with T2DM, (2) provides at-home support to an individual with T2DM and (3) assists, as an immediate family member, an individual with T2DM for more than 1 year prior to data collection.48 76 77

Healthcare service providers to conduct IDIs and KIIs

The healthcare service providers to conduct the IDIs include those providing diabetes care in the selected (1) district hospital, (2) upazila health complex, (3) community clinic, (4) diabetes hospital and (5) informal setup at the local level of rural Bangladesh. Further, the healthcare service providers to conduct the KIIs include endocrinologists, diabetologists, dietitians from tertiary-level hospitals that specialise in diabetes, directors from the medical college hospital, public health practitioners/experts and policy planners from public and non-government organisations in Bangladesh. Additionally, IDI and KII participants will be selected based on criteria such as (1) people aged 18 and older, (2) time and availability and (3) volunteer participation.

A few basic norms for selecting the participants are as follows: (1) participants will be selected with diverse characteristics (age, sex, occupation, income) for comprehensive insight, (2) an iterative process will be used to combine data collection and coding and (3) interviewers will maintain reflexivity, acknowledging their roles and biases.26

Research implementation plan and data management

This study will adopt the following sequential tasks: develop interview topic guides, recruitment and training workshops of field personnel, data collection, data processing and analysis and dissemination.

Interview topic guides

Interview topic guides were developed following an extensive literature review and consultation with relevant experts in the area. All guides were translated into Bangla (the native language of interviewers and participants). Following this, a native speaker (student investigator or student supervisor) checked for language clarity. Interview topic guides contained 12–15 key questions with accompanying prompts to explore the in-depth understanding/experiences of self-management practices, accessibility, difficulties and expectations in rural Bangladesh. Detailed interview topic guides can be found in online supplemental table 1.

Further, the interview topic guides will be used to collect information on the existing conditions of health facility services, including infrastructures, challenges and suggestions to improve the situation by interviewing healthcare service providers through IDIs and KIIs. All interview topic guides will be piloted in a similar setting (outside the original field sites) to assess study participants’ and interviewers’ comprehensibility, appropriateness and conformability. Based on the pilot study’s findings, required changes will be made before finalising interview topic guides.

Recruitment and training workshop for field personnel

Two medical graduates and four research assistants with social science backgrounds will be hired ad hoc. A training workshop will be organised to familiarise them with this study’s objectives and the interview guides for conducting FGDs, IDIs and KIIs. An expert group will train the field personnel in qualitative research methods to ensure the field personnel can clearly present the study objectives and the interview guides’ contents. The training workshop will be conducted in person. If the research team’s physical presence is limited, alternative arrangements will be made to hold the training workshop using audio-visual means such as through Skype, Zoom or voice calls. Additionally, two support personnel will be recruited from the area local to the data collection site. They will help the team navigate the area and build rapport with local residents.

Data collection

Transcripts will be generated and audio-recorded to facilitate data analysis. The focus group will be held at a nearby location to the participant’s home. This will be arranged through negotiation between the student investigator and the participants. Further, IDIs and KIIs will be conducted at the participant’s workplace. Written and verbal informed consent will be obtained from each participant before participating. The student investigator will organise and schedule the FGDs, IDIs and KIIs sessions. Each FGD will take approximately 45–60 min, and each IDI or KII will take 30–45 min. However, this process will last for 1 hour for each participant. The student investigator will observe the interviews (IDIs and KIIs) and FGDs by physical participation. Furthermore, two local academic investigators (local student supervisor and local student project investigator) will observe the interviews independently.

Theoretical framework

The social ecological theory addresses the complexities and interdependencies among socioeconomic, cultural, political, environmental, organisational, psychological and biological determinants of health.78 This study will follow Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory79 and Whittemore et al’s80 conceptual framework based on the social-ecological model, which is used to explain diabetes prevention and management and has been widely used in health service research.48 This model suggests that, for long-term behaviour change and, therefore, a successful programme, multiple levels of influence must be targeted. Influence levels are categorised as intrapersonal factors, interpersonal factors, institutional factors, community factors and public policy levels.79–83 Intrapersonal factors assess an individual’s ability to change their behaviour to optimise health in diabetes self-management practices, which are influenced by knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and self-confidence.84 85 A patient’s interpersonal relationships within a societal context, such as family, caregivers, friends, neighbours, colleagues and healthcare service providers, positively influence their diabetes self-management practices.82 86–88 Social support consists of interpersonal transactions and includes companionship and emotional, tangible and informational care.89 Institutional influences on an individual include work, school or college and religious surroundings. Institutional influences can provide a structural framework to promote healthy behaviours and prevention activities for diabetes-related comorbidities to a large group, thus forming social supports that further facilitate healthy lifestyle adoption.82 Their prescribed geographical location determines an individual’s community factor. Evidence indicates that neighbourhood and communities characteristics affect an individual’s health behaviour.80 85 90 Moreover, public policy influences an individual’s health behaviours through law and policy execution by local and national authorities.

This model is considered an appropriate framework to explain the dynamic interplay of multiple factors that acknowledge influencing causes as either facilitators, barriers or expectations to T2DM self-management practices in rural Bangladesh. Online supplemental figure S3 illustrates how to frame the coding procedure, analyse data and interpret findings.

Data processing and analysis

It is anticipated that a wide range of facilitators, barriers and expectations for T2DM self-management practices will be explored in this study from the perspectives of people with T2DM, their caregivers, healthcare service providers, administrators and policy planners. Anonymity and confidentiality of the information will be maintained by removing personal identifiers from the data. The notes and audio tapes will be saved on secure faculty-allocated network storage Monash (S:) drive. The applications will be accessible only to the research team. Participants’ identifiers, such as names and designations, will be removed from the main database. They will be saved in a separate, secure, electronic folder and not used for data analysis. The research findings will be published in scientific public health journals. The published reports will include group data only, and no individual data or information will be shared.

Once the interviews are completed, triangulating data from FGDs, IDIs and KIIs and comparing and contrasting the viewpoints of different stakeholder groups will strengthen the results on facilitators, barriers and expectations of T2DM self-management practices.91 The participants’ demographic characteristics will be presented as numbers and percentages and mean (±SD) as appropriate. Further, the study’s findings will be reported based on themes according to the social-ecological model level. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory, the analysis will be structured according to intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational and societal influences on T2DM self-management practices. Interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and then translated into English. The transcripts will first be read multiple times to familiarise with the data, and the student investigator on ATLAS.ti will code the data. Then, the data will be analysed using thematic inductive analysis according to Braun and Clarke’s ‘15-Point Checklist of Criteria for Good Thematic Analysis’,74 and all the patterns will be checked to ensure they are relevant to the research questions. Coded data with similar meanings will be grouped to form subthemes, which will be reviewed multiple times by the student investigator and the research team. Themes will then be finalised by merging common subthemes. Connections between different themes and subthemes will be displayed using thematic maps.74 Finally, these themes will be evaluated to ensure they address the research questions, and relevant quotations will be selected to illustrate the study’s findings.

Quality assurance and rigour

The four most common rigour procedures will be addressed: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.92 Credibility refers to the trustworthiness and believability of the findings. Credibility pertains to the reliability and believability of the results. Member checks will be performed to enhance the credibility of the study’s findings. Participants will review data collection themes and interpretations to ensure they are consistent with the correct interpretation. This study will provide information on study settings and demographic characteristics of the participants to clarify the results’ transferability. Two independent researchers will analyse the data to enhance the reliability of data interpretation. Discrepancies between the two investigators will be resolved through research group discussions. Confirmability and an audit trail will be maintained to record the research process. A peer audit will be performed.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Ethics and dissemination

This research project received ethical approval from the Ethical Review Committee of the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (Memo: CIPRB/ERC/2023/14) and the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (project number: 39483).

All participants will receive an explanatory statement and the chance to ask questions about the study. Informed consent will be obtained before their participation. Data will be anonymised by removing personal details from transcripts. Research findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals and conference presentations. Further, a summary of the research findings will be disseminated through community meetings, news media and advocacy initiatives among policymakers or planners.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study that aims to capture multiple stakeholders’ perspectives on facilitators, barriers and expectations for T2DM self-management practices in rural Bangladesh, engaging those who are more or less vulnerable based on locality and socioeconomic status rather than urban context. The study’s findings will aid policy planners, programme implementers, healthcare professionals and caregivers in developing need-oriented, effective and patient-centred self-management knowledge, skills and practices for people with T2DM in rural Bangladesh. Multiple views will be triangulated to initiate strategies to overcome barriers, reinforce facilitators and align expectations. This will provide evidence for developing a community-based practice approach for diabetes self-management. Further research, focusing on testing and evaluating the pathways proposed by this study, will be conducted to assess effectiveness in improving cost efficacy, and glycaemic control, and enhancing health-related quality of life for those affected by T2DM in rural Bangladesh. Despite rigorous sampling to ensure diverse participant representation across regions of the country, certain local factors may influence the results, potentially limiting their wider generalisability. Further, the exclusive focus of this study on rural populations may limit its generalisability to urban settings. In addition, this study may be subject to biases, including social desirability bias, in which participants may exaggerate or conceal true responses due to embarrassment or privacy concerns.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments
Author's manuscript

Footnotes

Contributors: HAC, CLH, AEJ, LA and BB conceived and designed the study. HAC drafted the manuscript. CLH, AEJ, AK, AKMFR, LA and BB revised the manuscript. CLH and BB provided equal stewardship. The final manuscript has been read and approved by all authors.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Map disclaimer: The inclusion of any map (including the depiction of any boundaries therein), or of any geographic or locational reference, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. Any such expression remains solely that of the relevant source and is not endorsed by BMJ. Maps are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

References

  • 1. Cade WT. Diabetes-related Microvascular and Macrovascular diseases in the physical therapy setting. Phys Ther 2008;88:1322–35. 10.2522/ptj.20080008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. IDF . Diabetes Atlas. International Diabetes Federation. 10th edn.2021. Available: https://diabetesatlas.org/idfawp/resource-files/2021/07/IDF_Atlas_10th_Edition_2021.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Afroz A, Alam K, Ali L, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bangladesh: a prevalence based cost-of-illness study. BMC Health Serv Res 2019;19:601. 10.1186/s12913-019-4440-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. WHO . Diabetes, The World Health Organization, 2022. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes
  • 5. Seuring T, Archangelidi O, Suhrcke M. The economic costs of type 2 diabetes: a global systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2015;33:811–31. 10.1007/s40273-015-0268-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Ettaro L, Songer TJ, Zhang P, et al. Cost-of-illness studies in diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:149–64. 10.2165/00019053-200422030-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Atun R, Davies JI, Gale EAM, et al. Diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa: from clinical care to health policy. Lancet Diabet Endocrinol 2017;5:622–67. 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30181-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Xu K, Evans DB, Kawabata K, et al. Household catastrophic health expenditure: a Multicountry analysis. Lancet 2003;362:111–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13861-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Bloom DE, Chatterji S, Kowal P, et al. Macroeconomic implications of population ageing and selected policy responses. Lancet 2015;385:649–57. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61464-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Moucheraud C, Lenz C, Latkovic M, et al. The costs of diabetes treatment in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4:e001258. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Richard AA, Shea K. Delineation of Self‐Care and associated concepts. J Nurs Scholarsh 2011;43:255–64. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2011.01404.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Gagliardino JJ, Aschner P, Baik SH, et al. Patients’ education, and its impact on care outcomes, resource consumption and working conditions: data from the International diabetes management practices study (IDMPS). Diabetes & Metabolism 2012;38:128–34. 10.1016/j.diabet.2011.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Gagliardino JJ, Lapertosa S, Pfirter G, et al. Clinical, metabolic and psychological outcomes and treatment costs of a prospective randomized trial based on different educational strategies to improve diabetes care (PRODIACOR). Diabet Med 2013;30:1102–11. 10.1111/dme.12230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Minet L, Møller S, Vach W, et al. Mediating the effect of self-care management intervention in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of 47 randomised controlled trials. Patient Educ Couns 2010;80:29–41. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Yuan L. A nationwide survey of diabetes education, self-management and Glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Chin Med J 2012;125:4175–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Zhang X, Wu S, Wang F, et al. Association between social support and self-management behaviors among patients with diabetes in community. J Peking University 2017;455–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Chowdhury HA, Harrison CL, Siddiquea BN, et al. The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education intervention on Glycaemic control and Cardiometabolic risk in adults with type 2 diabetes in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2024;19:e0297328. 10.1371/journal.pone.0297328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Goodall TA, Halford WK. Self-management of diabetes mellitus: a critical review. Health Psychol 1991;10:1–8. 10.1037//0278-6133.10.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Tomky D, Tomky D, Cypress M, et al. Aade position statement. Diabetes Educ 2008;34:445–9. 10.1177/0145721708316625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS, Ramasamy J. Role of self-care in management of diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2013;12:1–5. 10.1186/2251-6581-12-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Edition IDAT . International Diabetes Federation (IDF), 2021. Available: https://diabetesatlas.org/idfawp/resource-files/2021/07.IDF_Atlas_10th_Edition_2021.pdf
  • 22. Chowdhury MAB, Islam M, Rahman J, et al. Diabetes among adults in Bangladesh: changes in prevalence and risk factors between two cross-sectional surveys. BMJ Open 2022;12:e055044. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Fottrell E, Ahmed N, Shaha SK, et al. Diabetes knowledge and care practices among adults in rural Bangladesh: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Glob Health 2018;3:e000891. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Rahman MS, Akter S, Abe SK, et al. Awareness, treatment, and control of diabetes in Bangladesh: a nationwide population-based study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0118365. 10.1371/journal.pone.0118365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Chowdhury HA, Paromita P, Mayaboti CA, et al. Assessing service availability and readiness of Healthcare facilities to manage diabetes mellitus in Bangladesh: findings from a nationwide survey. PLoS One 2022;17:e0263259. 10.1371/journal.pone.0263259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Kabir A, Karim MN, Billah B. Primary Healthcare system readiness to prevent and manage non-communicable diseases in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study protocol. BMJ Open 2021;11:e051961. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Jones L, Crabb S, Turnbull D, et al. Barriers and Facilitators to effective type 2 diabetes management in a rural context: a qualitative study with diabetic patients and health professionals. J Health Psychol 2014;19:441–53. 10.1177/1359105312473786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Afroz A, Ali L, Karim MN, et al. Glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bangladesh-an urgent need for optimization of management plan. Sci Rep 2019;9:10248. 10.1038/s41598-019-46766-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Suglo JN, Evans C. Factors influencing self-management in relation to type 2 diabetes in Africa: A qualitative systematic review. PLoS One 2020;15:e0240938. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Murphy K, Casey D, Dinneen S, et al. Participants’ perceptions of the factors that influence diabetes Self‐Management following a structured education (DAFNE) programme. J Clin Nurs 2011;20:1282–92. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03564.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Frost J, Garside R, Cooper C, et al. A qualitative synthesis of diabetes self-management strategies for long term medical outcomes and quality of life in the UK. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:348. 10.1186/1472-6963-14-348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Schmidt SK, Hemmestad L, MacDonald CS, et al. Motivation and barriers to maintaining lifestyle changes in patients with type 2 diabetes after an intensive lifestyle intervention (the U-TURN trial): A longitudinal qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:7454. 10.3390/ijerph17207454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Patel T, Umeh K, Poole H, et al. Cultural identity conflict informs engagement with self-management Behaviours for South Asian patients living with Type-2 diabetes: a critical interpretative synthesis of qualitative research studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:2641. 10.3390/ijerph18052641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Majeed-Ariss R, Jackson C, Knapp P, et al. A systematic review of research into black and ethnic minority patients' views on Self‐Management of type 2 diabetes. Health Expect 2015;18:625–42. 10.1111/hex.12080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Christensen NI, Drejer S, Burns K, et al. A qualitative exploration of Facilitators and barriers for diabetes self-management behaviors among persons with type 2 diabetes from a socially disadvantaged area. Patient Prefer Adherence 2020;14:569–80. 10.2147/PPA.S237631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Saunders T. Type 2 diabetes self-management barriers in older adults: an integrative review of the qualitative literature. J Gerontol Nurs 2019;45:43–54. 10.3928/00989134-20190211-05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Blasco-Blasco M, Puig-García M, Piay N, et al. Barriers and Facilitators to successful management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review. PLoS One 2020;15:e0237542. 10.1371/journal.pone.0237542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Fransen MP, Beune EJAJ, Baim-Lance AM, et al. Diabetes Self‐Management support for patients with low health literacy: perceptions of patients and providers 针对低健康素养患者的糖尿病自我管理支持: 患者与提供者的观念. J Diabetes 2015;7:418–25. 10.1111/1753-0407.12191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Stiffler D, Cullen D, Luna G. Diabetes barriers and self-care management: the patient perspective. Clin Nurs Res 2014;23:601–26. 10.1177/1054773813507948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Byers D, Garth K, Manley D, et al. Facilitators and barriers to type 2 diabetes self-management among rural African American adults. J Health Dispar Res Pract 2016;9:9. [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Tewahido D, Berhane Y. Self-care practices among diabetes patients in Addis Ababa: a qualitative study. PLoS One 2017;12:e0169062. 10.1371/journal.pone.0169062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Henderson J, Wilson C, Roberts L, et al. Social barriers to type 2 diabetes Self‐Management: the role of capital. Nurs Inq 2014;21:336–45. 10.1111/nin.12073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Mogre V, Johnson NA, Tzelepis F, et al. Barriers to diabetic Self‐Care: A qualitative study of patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives. J Clin Nurs 2019;28:2296–308. 10.1111/jocn.14835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Mogre V, Abanga ZO, Tzelepis F, et al. Adherence to and factors associated with self-care Behaviours in type 2 diabetes patients in Ghana. BMC Endocr Disord 2017;17:20. 10.1186/s12902-017-0169-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Mphasha MH, Mothiba TM, Skaal L. Family support in the management of diabetes patients’ perspectives from Limpopo province in South Africa. BMC Public Health 2022;22::2421. 10.1186/s12889-022-14903-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Ramkisson S, Pillay BJ, Sibanda W. Social support and coping in adults with type 2 diabetes. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med 2017;9:e1–8. 10.4102/phcfm.v9i1.1405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Masupe TK, Ndayi K, Tsolekile L, et al. Redefining diabetes and the concept of self-management from a patient’s perspective: implications for disease risk factor management. Health Educ Res 2018;33:40–54. 10.1093/her/cyx077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Adhikari M, Devkota HR, Cesuroglu T. Barriers to and Facilitators of diabetes self-management practices in Rupandehi, Nepal-multiple Stakeholders’ perspective. BMC Public Health 2021;21. 10.1186/s12889-021-11308-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Alvarado MM, Kum H-C, Gonzalez Coronado K, et al. Barriers to remote health interventions for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and proposed classification scheme. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:e28. 10.2196/jmir.6382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Nagelkerk J, Reick K, Meengs L. Perceived barriers and effective strategies to diabetes Self‐Management. J Adv Nurs 2006;54:151–8. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03799.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Prasai D. A review of studies on Nepal’s National free health care programme. Kathmandu: primary health care revitalization division, Department of health services, Ministry of health and population (gon). 2013.
  • 52. De Man J, Aweko J, Daivadanam M, et al. Diabetes self-management in three different income settings: cross-learning of barriers and opportunities. PLoS One 2019;14:e0213530. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Tripp-Reimer T, Choi E, Kelley LS, et al. Cultural barriers to care: Inverting the problem. Diabetes Spectr 2001;14:13–22. 10.2337/diaspect.14.1.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Vermeire E, Hearnshaw H, Rätsep A, et al. Obstacles to adherence in living with Type-2 diabetes: an international qualitative study using meta-Ethnography (EUROBSTACLE). Prim Care Diabetes 2007;1:25–33. 10.1016/j.pcd.2006.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Vermeire E, Van Royen P, Coenen S, et al. The adherence of type 2 diabetes patients to their therapeutic regimens: a qualitative study from the patient’s perspective. Pract Diab Int 2003;20:209–14. 10.1002/pdi.505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Laranjo L, Neves AL, Costa A, et al. Facilitators, barriers and expectations in the self-management of type 2 diabetes—a qualitative study from Portugal. Eur J Gen Pract 2015;21:103–10. 10.3109/13814788.2014.1000855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Organization WH . Bangladesh health system review: WHO regional office for the Western Pacific. 2015.
  • 58. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics . Population and Housing Census 2011. Bangladesh: Socioeconomic and Demographic Report Dhaka, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Ahmed S, Alam B, Anwar I, et al. Bangladesh Health System Review. Dhaka, Bangladesh: World Health Organization, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Lewis CP, Newell JN. Patients’ perspectives of care for type 2 diabetes in Bangladesh–a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:1–7. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Vanderlee L, Ahmed S, Ferdous F, et al. Self-care practices and barriers to compliance among patients with diabetes in a community in rural Bangladesh. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries 2016;36:320–6. 10.1007/s13410-015-0460-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Parishad U . Study circle discussion guide. 2003. Available: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnado537.pdf
  • 63. Hossain MB, Khan MN, Oldroyd JC, et al. Prevalence of, and risk factors for, diabetes and Prediabetes in Bangladesh: evidence from the National survey using a Multilevel Poisson regression model with a robust variance. PLOS Glob Public Health 2022;2:e0000461. 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Jhenaidah Sadar Upazila, Available: https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Jhenaidah_Sadar_Upazila
  • 65. Liamputtong P. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 2010.
  • 66. Colorafi KJ, Evans B. Qualitative descriptive methods in health science research. HERD 2016;9:16–25. 10.1177/1937586715614171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Kim H, Sefcik JS, Bradway C. Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Res Nurs Health 2017;40:23–42. 10.1002/nur.21768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Encyclopedia of Statistics in behavioral science. 2005. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0470013192
  • 69. Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group, Available: https://irep.olemiss.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2016/05/Trinity_Duke_How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf
  • 70. Smithson J. Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2000;3:103–19. 10.1080/136455700405172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Wilkinson S. Focus group methodology: a review. Int J Soc Res Methodol 1998;1:181–203. 10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Ahmed SM, Hossain MA, Chowdhury MR. Informal sector providers in Bangladesh: how equipped are they to provide rational health care Health Policy Plan 2009;24:467–78. 10.1093/heapol/czp037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18:59–82. 10.1177/1525822X05279903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualit Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Kabir A, Karim N, Billah B. Preference and willingness to receive non-communicable disease services from primary Healthcare facilities in Bangladesh: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:1473. 10.1186/s12913-022-08886-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Ahmann E, Abraham M, Johnson B. Institute for patient-and family-centered care. Emerg Med (Los Angel) 2010;15:109–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Lister J, Han L, Bellass S, et al. Identifying determinants of diabetes risk and outcomes for people with severe mental illness: a mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2021;9:1–194. 10.3310/hsdr09100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot 1996;10:282–98. 10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological Systems Theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Whittemore R, Melkus GDE, Grey M. Applying the social ecological theory to type 2 diabetes prevention and management. J Community Health Nurs 2004;21:87–99. 10.1207/s15327655jchn2102_03 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Emmons KM. Health behaviors in a social context. Soc Epidemiol 2000;137:242–65. 10.1093/oso/9780195083316.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, et al. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 1988;15:351–77. 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Glanz K. Progress in dietary behavior change. Am J Health Promot 1999;14:112–7. 10.4278/0890-1171-14.2.112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Norris SL, Engelgau MM, Narayan KM. Effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2001;24:561–87. 10.2337/diacare.24.3.561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Kaplan GA, Everson SA, Lynch JW. The contribution of social and behavioral research to an understanding of the distribution of disease: a Multilevel approach. 2000.
  • 86. Brown SA, Hedges LV. Predicting metabolic control in diabetes: a pilot study using meta-analysis to estimate a linear model. Nurs Res 1994;43:362–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Trief PM, Himes CL, Orendorff R, et al. The marital relationship and Psychosocial adaptation and Glycemic control of individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1384–9. 10.2337/diacare.24.8.1384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. King DK, Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, et al. Self-efficacy, problem solving, and social-environmental support are associated with diabetes self-management behaviors. Diabetes Care 2010;33:751–3. 10.2337/dc09-1746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Ford ME, Tilley BC, McDonald PE. Social support among African-American adults with diabetes, part 2: A review. J Natl Med Assoc 1998;90:425–32:425. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt MK, et al. Implications of the results of community intervention trials. Annu Rev Public Health 1998;19:379–416. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, et al. Developing and implementing a Triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res 2006;16:377–94. 10.1177/1049732305285708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Moon MD, Wolf LA, Baker K, et al. Evaluating qualitative research studies for use in the clinical setting. J Emerg Nurs 2013;39:508–10. 10.1016/j.jen.2013.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2023-081385supp001.pdf (606.9KB, pdf)

Reviewer comments
Author's manuscript

Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES