A Qualitative Exploration of Motivation to Self-Manage and Styles of Self-Management amongst People Living with Type 2 Diabetes

Table 1

Styles of patient participant self-management with associated motives, indicators of un/successful management, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Style of self-management	Motive/s for self-management	Gauges of un/successful management	T2D and sociodemographic characteristics
Self-managing T2D through routinisation; ()	“Concern about anticipative effects”; “Staying well”	Successful: (1) No perceived deterioration, pay-offs for self-management; (2) No disruption to routine; Unsuccessful: (1) Perceived deterioration, lack of pay-offs for self-management; (2) Disruptions to stable routines	Newly diagnosed ≤ 1 year
Self-managing T2D as a burden; ()	“Concern about anticipative effects”; “Maintaining independence”	Successful: (1) No perceived deterioration, or pay-offs for self-management; (2) No disruption to routines; (3) Support from healthcare professionals; Unsuccessful: (1) Perceived deterioration, lack of pay-offs for self-management; (2) Disruptions in stable routines; (3) Lack of support from healthcare professionals	Advanced age 70+; Living with severe T2D/complications; Low income ≤£10 k p.a.
Self-managing T2D as maintenance; ()	“Concern about anticipative effects”; “Staying well”; “Reducing need for healthcare professionals”	Successful: (1) No perceived deterioration, or pay-offs for self-management; (2) No disruption to routine; (3) Minimal use of healthcare professionals; (4) Downward comparison with others living with T2D; Unsuccessful: (1) Perceived deterioration, lack of pay-offs for self-management (T2D not kept at bay); (2) Disruptions in stable routines; (3) Increased use of healthcare professionals	≥1 year since diagnosis; Diagnosed as a result of hospitalisation and screening (often asymptomatic)
Self-managing T2D through delegation; ()	“Concern about anticipative effects”; “Staying well”; “Maintaining independence”	Successful: (1) No perceived deterioration, pay-offs for self-management; (2) No disruptions to routines; Unsuccessful: (1) Perceived deterioration, lack of pay-offs for self-management; (2) Disruptions to stable routines	Gender (predominantly males)
Self-managing T2D through comanagement; ()	“Concern about anticipative effects”; “Staying well”; “Maintaining independence”; ‘‘Reducing need for healthcare professionals”	Successful: (1) No perceived deterioration, or pay-offs for self-management; (2) No disruptions to routines; (3) Minimal use of healthcare professionals; Unsuccessful: (1) Perceived deterioration, lack of pay-offs for self-management; (2) Disruptions to stable routines; (3) Lack of continuity care; (4) Increased dependency on healthcare professionals	≥1 year since diagnosis
Self-managing through autonomy; ()	“Concern about anticipative effects”; “Staying well”; “Maintaining independence”; “Reducing need for healthcare professionals”; “Improving quality of care”	Successful: (1) As 1–4 above; (2) Autonomous control over T2D self-management; (3) Successes measured against non-T2D population; Unsuccessful: (1) As 1–4 above; (2) Reliance on others, including health professionals; (3) Experiencing restrictions due to lack of personal control over T2D	≥2 years since diagnosis; Increased income; ≥£28 k p.a.; Professional and degree-level qualifications; Insulin-controlled; Comorbidity (few)