Bibliometric analysis reveals growth in health-related quality of life studies for women with diabetes, indicating emerging themes in digital health and psychosocial factors.
Background Women living with diabetes face unique biological, psychosocial, and socioeconomic challenges that significantly affect their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the growing global burden of diabetes, no comprehensive mapping of HRQoL research in this population has yet been conducted. Objective This study systematically maps global research trends, key contributors, thematic structures, and the intellectual development of HRQoL research among women with diabetes. Methods A bibliometric analysis was conducted using Scopus-indexed publications (n = 3,254) from 2000 to 2024. Performance analysis and science mapping techniques were applied using Biblioshiny (R package Bibliometrix). Results The field exhibited a compound annual growth rate of 10.71%, expanding from fewer than 20 publications in 2000 to more than 250 in 2024. Research output was concentrated in high-income countries, led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and China, with 25.6% of publications involving international collaboration. A small group of prolific authors shaped much of the discourse, while citation analysis highlighted influential but less prolific contributors. Thematic mapping identified patient-reported outcomes, comorbidities, aging, and psychosocial health as core themes, alongside emerging interest in digital health and socioeconomic determinants. However, geographic disparities persist, with limited contributions from low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion The field of HRQoL research among women with diabetes is rapidly expanding, multidisciplinary, and increasingly collaborative. Nonetheless, methodological limitations remain, including reliance on a single database (Scopus) and the predominance of cross-sectional designs. These gaps underscore the need for more diverse, longitudinal, and interventional research approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeeshan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: