The number of trials and statistically significant results in family interventions targeting adults with diabetes is limited. Because of inhomogeneity, it is difficult to come to a conclusion on effective approaches in family interventions. The interventions are inconsistent with regard to theoretical framework, intervention themes and measured outcomes. However, psychosocial and familial dimensions seem sensitive to family-based interventions. From development to evaluation, the family dimension needs to be included to prove the specific effect of family interventions.

Background: Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of diabetes distress, depression, anxiety and eating disorders. Still, health professionals working with diabetes often fail to identify patients with serious psychological problems and to address psychological issues in general. Our aim was to explore diabetologist's perceived barriers to addressing psychological issues in diabetes consultations.

With digital patient‐reported outcome (PRO) tools in clinical practice, patients are given new tasks of providing data that aim at supporting and individualising care, simultaneously reducing unnecessary clinical visits. While the innovative potential of mobilising PRO data for care is increasingly explored, little attention is given to the efforts that the provision of PRO data rests on – that of the patients. Based on ethnographic fieldwork carried out among cancer patients receiving PRO‐based follow‐up care, we argue that with the increased reliance on patient‐generated health data, we need to consider patients’ data work. Drawing on emerging literature on healthcare professionals’ data work and the rich work in sociology and Science and Technology Studies (STS) on patients’ active engagement in shaping and managing care, we conceptualise PRO patient data work as two simultaneous processes: the process of data filtering – patients filter information to fit the envisaged recipient and purpose; and the process of data sensing – patients evaluate their embodied experiences. By doing so, we show that patients’ data work has implications beyond simply providing data that represent their experiences.

Individuals with lower income and less education are two to four times more likely to develop diabetes than more advantaged individuals. In response to this, there is a need for developing health promotion activities targeting hardly reached populations. The aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of hardly reached people with type 2 diabetes on patient education, focusing on their wishes and needs regarding format and approach. Data were collected through qualitative interviews with nine individuals with type 2 diabetes with little or no education and characterized as hardly reached patients by health professionals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to systematic text condensation. We identified four main categories of preferences for patient education: 1) flexibility related to start time, duration, and intensity; 2) simple and concrete education tools, with regard to design and extent; 3) being together, related to meeting people in a similar situation; and 4) respectful educators, related to constructive patient–educator relationships. Insights into the preferences of hardly reached people with diabetes can contribute to the development of appropriately tailored patient education for this patient group.

Some patients do not benefit from participation in patient education due to reasons related to disease burden, literacy, and socioeconomic challenges. In this communication, we address more specifically both the challenges that these hardly reached patients face in relation to patient education programs and the challenges educators face when conducting patient education with hardly reached patients. We define principles for the format and content of dialogue tools to better support this patient group within the population of individuals with diabetes.