Correction to: Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

Correction During the production process for this article [1] some errors were introduced into Table 2. The correct version of Table 2 can be found below; the original article [1] has also been updated with the correct version of Table 2. BMC apologises to the authors and to readers for this error

Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Information-seeking behaviour is necessary to improve knowledge on diabetes therapy and complications. Combined with other self-management skills and autonomous handling of the disease, it is essential for achieving treatment targets. However, a systematic review addressing this topic is lacking. The aims of this systematic review were to identify and analyse existing knowledge of information-seeking behaviour: (1) types information-seeking behaviour, (2) information sources, (3) the content of searched information, and (4) associated variables that may affect information-seeking behaviour. METHODS: The systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) requirements. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CCMed, ERIC, Journals@OVID, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Karlsruher virtueller Katalog (KvK) databases were searched. Publications dealing with information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus published up to June 2015 were included. A forward citation tracking was performed in September 2016 and June 2017. Additionally, an update of the two main databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) was conducted, considering studies published up to July 2017. Studies published in languages other than English or German were excluded, as well as letters, short reports, editorials, comments and discussion papers. A study selection and the critical appraisal of the selected studies were performed independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer was consulted if any disagreement was found. Data extraction and content analysis were performed using selected dimensions of Wilson’s ‘model of information behaviour’. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. Five ‘types of information-seeking behaviour’ were identified, e.g. passive and active search. The ‘Internet’ and ‘healthcare professionals’ were the most frequently reported sources. ‘Diet’, ‘complications’, ‘exercise’ and ‘medications and pharmacological interactions’ were the most frequently identified content of information. Seven main categories including associated variables were identified, e.g. ‘socioeconomic’, ‘duration of DM’, and ‘lifestyle’. CONCLUSION: The systematic review provides a valuable overview of available knowledge on the information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus, although there are only a few studies. There was a high heterogeneity regarding the research question, design, methods and participants. Although the Internet is often used to seek information, health professionals still play an important role in supporting their patients’ information-seeking behaviour. Specific needs of people with diabetes must be taken into consideration

Psychosocial barriers to healthcare use among individuals with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review regarding psychosocial barriers to healthcare use in individuals with diabetes mellitus, using a well-established model of health-service use as a theoretical framework. METHODS: We used database-specific controlled vocabularies and additional free text terms, and conducted searches via MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, OVID Journals. Included studies were rated according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria. A narrative data synthesis was conducted, using the Andersen model and developing categories from the included studies. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: In total, 2923 studies were identified, and 15 finally included. We identified barriers according to the main categories “population characteristics”, “norms and values”, and “healthcare services” on a contextual and individual level, as well as “health status”. Frequently reported barriers were “socioeconomic status”, and “physician characteristics”. Ethnic minorities were frequently analysed and may have specific barriers, e.g. “cultural beliefs” and “language". MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: We identified a broad range of barriers to healthcare use in individuals with diabetes mellitus. However, the number of studies is low. Further research is needed to analyse barriers in more detail considering special subgroups

Additional file 1: of Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

The PRISMA statement (2009). (DOC 84 kb