Abstract
Aims/hypothesis
Diabetes distress affects approximately 40% of adults with type 1 diabetes and is associated with impaired self-care, but is rarely assessed or addressed in routine care. The D-Stress study aims to develop an innovative care pathway to manage diabetes distress. A core component seeks to integrate comprehensive distress assessment with discussion into routine consultations. This rapid realist review examined how, why and in what contexts diabetes distress assessment and discussion might work to assess, manage and reduce diabetes distress among adults with type 1 diabetes.
Methods
Following guidance for rapid realist reviews, we synthesised evidence from 35 documents identified via expert-led searches and stakeholder consultation. Data were analysed to develop programme theories explaining how the intervention might operate in clinical practice.
Results
Eight programme theories were generated. Key mechanisms include: (1) embedding emotional health in routine care; (2) comprehensive assessment and interpretation for timely support; (3) facilitating self-reflection and priority setting; (4) maintaining continuity through regular emotional health discussions; (5) supporting healthcare professionals to personalise consultations; (6) clarifying care pathways and expectations; (7) normalising emotional responses to type 1 diabetes; and (8) promoting person-centred, collaborative consultations. Evidence indicated that validated type 1 diabetes assessments with structured dialogue can normalise emotional responses and promote person-centred care. Critical contextual factors include sufficient consultation time, staff training and clear referral pathways.
Conclusions/interpretation
Comprehensive assessment with discussion may address a gap in diabetes care by integrating emotional health into routine consultations. The programme theories developed here suggest that diabetes distress assessment and discussion may reduce risk of escalation of distress, empower adults with type 1 diabetes and strengthen therapeutic relationships. These findings will guide the realist process evaluation of the D-Stress pathway, highlighting contextual considerations essential for implementation.
Graphical abstract