Cited by 103Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and ManagementPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Acknowledging and allocating responsibility for clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative study

Zafar, A., Stone, M. A., Davies, M. J., Khunti, K.·2015·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Aims Failure to intensify treatment in patients with Type 2 diabetes with suboptimal blood glucose control has been termed clinical inertia and has been shown to contribute to poorer patient outcomes. We aimed to identify and explore perceptions about clinical inertia from the perspective of primary healthcare providers. Methods A qualitative study was conducted in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, UK. Purposive sampling was based on healthcare providers working in primary care settings with 'higher' and 'lower' target achievement based on routine data. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, face-to-face or by telephone. Thematic analysis was informed by the constant comparative approach. Results An important broad theme that emerged during the analysis was related to attribution and explanation of responsibility for clinical inertia. This included general willingness to accept a degree of responsibility for clinical inertia. In some cases, however, participants had inaccurate perceptions about levels of target achievement in their primary care centres, as indicated by routine data. Participants sought to lessen their own sense of accountability by highlighting patient-level barriers such as comorbidities and human fallibility, and also system-level barriers, particularly time constraints. Perceptions about ways of addressing the problem of clinical inertia were not seen as straightforward, further emphasizing a complex and cumulative pattern of barriers. Conclu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.12592

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most participants could offer relevant explanations of the concept of clinical inertia despite being unaware of the term.

    “Surprisingly, Zafar et al. [27] reported that most of the participants (physician or nurse) were unaware of the term “clinical inertia” or its meaning, but they could offer relevant explanations of the concept.”
  • Most participants (physicians or nurses) were unaware of the term "clinical inertia" or its meaning.

    “Zafar et al. [27] reported that most of the participants were unaware of the term “clinical inertia”.”
  • Patient-level barriers to treatment intensification include non-compliance to prescribed medications, failure to attend appointments, conflicting priorities, lack of awareness about the fatality of type 2 diabetes mellitus, lack of symptoms, human error, comorbidities, polypharmacy, complex nature of the disease, deprivation, and communication barrier.

    “At the patient level, barriers included non-compliance to prescribed medications, failure to attend appointments, conflicting priorities (such as perceptions, beliefs, or work commitments), lack of awareness about the fatality of T2DM, lack of symptoms, human error, comorbidities, polypharmacy, complex nature of the disease, deprivation, and communication barrier [27].”
  • Some physicians admit their responsibility for clinical inertia because they think health professional factors far outweigh factors at the patients' end.

    “Interestingly, at the provider level, some of the physicians admit their responsibility for clinical inertia because they think that health professional factors far outweigh the factors at the patients’ end.”
  • Some physicians directly blamed their patients for not complying with instructions or not visiting their clinic on time.

    “At the same time, some physicians directly blamed their patients for not complying with their instructions or not visiting their clinic on time [27].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zafar, A., Stone, M. A., Davies, M. J., & Khunti, K.
Affiliations
Diabetes Research Unit Leicester Diabetes Centre Leicester UK
Corresponding author
Zafar, A.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-11
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
407-413
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W2097269681
Cited by
103
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Diabetes UK
  • National Institute for Health (NIHR) Research Collaboration
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
clinical inertia, type 2 diabetes, primary care, accountability, attribution of responsibility, time constraints, comorbidities, human fallibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Social Responsibility, Treatment Outcome, Disease Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review