Rapid realist review identifies mechanisms for embedding distress discussions in routine care, highlighting how structured tools and clinician confidence improve emotional support.
Aims/hypothesis To generate initial programme theories explaining how assessment and discussion of diabetes distress could be embedded into routine type 2 diabetes care, providing a theoretical foundation for future evaluation and implementation. Methods A rapid realist review synthesised evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies, systematic reviews and professional commentaries. Four electronic health databases were searched between November 2024 and April 2025, and papers were selected based on their relevance and rigour. Context–mechanism–outcome configurations were developed to hypothesise mechanisms, contextual factors and outcomes associated with integration of diabetes distress assessment and discussion in routine type 2 diabetes care. Results 36 papers were included in the final synthesis. Five initial programme theories were proposed, which hypothesise that: integration could work when it (1) validates healthcare professionals’ role in providing emotional support; (2) builds skills and confidence to discuss distress; (3) fosters trusting, person-centred relationships and consultations; (4) uses structured tools to facilitate dialogue; and when (5) healthcare professionals normalise routine discussion of emotional well-being. Barriers include time constraints in consultations, workload pressures, limited training and uncertainty regarding professional responsibilities. Conclusions/interpretation The review provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how diabetes distress assessment and discussion could work in routine type 2 diabetes care. With future realist evaluation to test and refine these theories, this could address a key gap in existing literature and guide changes in clinical care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peck et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: