A Cross-sectional Survey to Assess Reasons for Therapeutic Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Preferred Strategies to Overcome It From the Perspectives of Persons With Diabetes and General/Family Practitioners: Results From the MOTION Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although multiple causes of therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been identified, few studies have addressed the behavioural aspects of treatment-intensification decisions among persons with type 2 diabetes (PwT2DM) and general practitioners/family practitioners (GPFPs). METHODS: A quantitative online survey was developed to capture from 300 PwT2DM and 100 GPFPs the following information: 1) perspectives on shared decision-making (SDM) related to treatment intensification, using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire and the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire---physician version; 2) intentions to intensify treatments, using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB); and 3) preferred strategies to overcome causes of therapeutic inertia in T2DM. Regression methods were applied post hoc to examine correlations with SDM scores, behavioural intentions and behaviours. RESULTS: SDM scores showed a significantly lower level of perceived involvement in decision-making related to treatment intensification among PwT2DM compared with GPFPs. The TPB identified that, for PwT2DM, attitudes, perceived behavioural control and age were associated with variation in intention to intensify treatment and, for GPFPs, perceived behavioural control and not being in a shared/group practice were associated with intentions to intensify treatment. PwT2DM behaviour, measured as hesitancy to intensify treatment, was associated with age. PwT2DM want more information to become more comfortable with the treatment decision-making process, whereas GPFPs desired support from other health professionals, and more time to address issues among PwT2DM. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies directed at providing GPFPs with tools/approaches to increase PwT2DM involvement in the decision-making process, such as behavioural coaching, decision aids and goal setting, may increase acceptance of treatment intensification, leading to a reduction in therapeutic inertia in T2DM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".