Aim: To identify the barriers and facilitators to start insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Method: This was a systematic review. We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science (up to 5 June 2014) for original English articles using the terms 'type 2 diabetes', 'insulin', and free texts: 'barrier' or 'facilitate' and 'initiate'. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed and extracted the data. Study quality was assessed with Qualsyst. Results: A total of 9740 references were identified: 41 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-five articles (15 qualitative, 10 quantitative) were included in the review. Good inter-rater reliability was observed for the Qualsyst score (weighted kappa 0.7). Three main themes identified were as follows: patient-related, healthcare professional and system factors. The main patientrelated barriers were fear of pain and injection (n = 18), concerns about side effects of insulin (n = 12), perception that insulin indicated end stage of diabetes (n = 11), inconvenience (n = 10), difficulty in insulin administration (n = 7), punishment (n = 7) and stigma and discrimination (n = 7). Healthcare professionals' barriers were as follows: poor knowledge and skills (n = 9), physician inertia (n = 5) and language barriers (n = 4). System barriers included lack of time (n = 5). The most common facilitators were understanding the benefits of insulin (n = 7), not being afraid of injections (n = 5), and patient education and information (n = 5). Conclusion: Major barriers to insulin initiation persist despite availability of newer and safer insulin. Healthcare professionals should explore and address these barriers. Targeted interventions should be developed to overcome these barriers.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) lead to substantial mortality and morbidity worldwide. The most common NCDs are cardiovascular diseases (CVD), diabetes, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases. With the rapid increase in NCD-related deaths in Asia Pacific countries, NCDs are now the major cause of deaths and disease burden in the region. NCDs hamper achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). People in the low socio-economic group are most affected by NCDs as they have poor access to policies, legislations, regulations and healthcare services meant to combat NCDs. This results in loss of productivity by a decreasing labor force with implications at the macroeconomic level. The 3 major NCDs in the Asia Pacific region are CVDs, cancer and diabetes due to the increasing loss of disability adjusted life years (DALYs). The 4 major behavioral risk factors for NCDs are: tobacco use, alcohol consumption, inadequate physical activity and unhealthy diet. The underlying risk factors are urbanization, globalization, sedentary lifestyle, obesity and hypertension. Strategies to combat NCDs in the Asia Pacific region are as follows: population-based dietary salt reduction, health education, psychological interventions, i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational-interviewing, taxation and bans on tobacco-related advertisements, implementing smoke-free zones and surveillance by the World Health Organization. Control measures must focus on prevention and strengthening inter-sectorial collaboration.

BackgroundPatient decisions are influenced by their personal values. However, there is a lack of clarity and attention on the concept of patient values in the clinical context despite clear emphasis on patient values in evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. The aim of the study was to explore the concept of patient values in the context of making decisions about insulin initiation among people with type 2 diabetes.Methods and FindingsWe conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28–67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, ‘treatment-specific values’, ‘life goals and philosophies’, and ‘personal and social background’, emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients’ decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).ConclusionsThis study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients’ priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.

BackgroundInvolving patients in decision-making is an important part of patient-centred care. Research has found a discrepancy between patients’ desire to be involved and their actual involvement in healthcare decision-making. In Asia, there is a dearth of research in decision-making. Using Malaysia as an exemplar, this study aims to review the current research evidence, practices, policies, and laws with respect to patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) in Asia.MethodsIn this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation.ResultsThere are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient’ programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan.ConclusionIn summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia.

BackgroundNationwide surveys have shown that the prevalence of diabetes rates in Malaysia have almost doubled in the past ten years; yet diabetes control remains poor and insulin therapy is underutilized. This study aimed to explore healthcare professionals’ views on barriers to starting insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsHealthcare professionals consisting of general practitioners (n = 11), family medicine specialists (n = 10), medical officers (n = 8), government policy makers (n = 4), diabetes educators (n = 3) and endocrinologists (n = 2) were interviewed. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews by trained facilitators. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.ResultsInsulin initiation was found to be affected by patient, healthcare professional and system factors. Patients’ barriers include culture-specific barriers such as the religious purity of insulin, preferred use of complementary medication and perceived lethality of insulin therapy. Healthcare professionals’ barriers include negative attitudes towards insulin therapy and the ‘legacy effect’ of old insulin guidelines; whilst system barriers highlight the lack of resources, language and communication challenges.ConclusionsTackling the issue of insulin initiation should not only happen during clinical consultations. It requires health education to emphasise the progressive nature of diabetes and the eventuality of insulin therapy at early stage of the illness. Healthcare professionals should be trained how to initiate insulin and communicate effectively with patients from various cultural and religious backgrounds.