LAUSR

Background Screening for depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in primary care is increasingly recommended but implementation in practice is suboptimal. As health care professionals influence detection practices, their perceptions and experiences of screening recommendations can improve understanding of aspects that work, and those which are difficult to implement. We aim to synthesise the available qualitative evidence on healthcare professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to recognising possible depression and diabetes distress in people with T2DM using validated screening tools compared to clinical questioning or no screening. Methods Primary qualitative and mixed method studies were identified using systematic database searching of six databases and supplementary searching. We selected ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ to synthesise primary data using the RETREAT (Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of Data) framework. We selected the theoretical domains framework (TDF) as the a priori best fit framework as the TDF is derived from existing behaviour change theories. Quality appraisal of primary studies and confidence in the overall review findings will be determined using the CASP (Critical-Appraisal-Skills-Programme) and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading-of-Recommendations-Assessment-Development-and-Evaluation-Confidence-in-the-Evidence-from-Reviews-of-Qualitative-research) respectively. The study is registered on the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42019145483). Results Ten primary qualitative studies were identified from five countries; England (n=4), China (n=1), the Netherlands (n=3), Australia (n=1), Canada (n=1). No studies on detection of diabetes-distress were identified. Data extraction and analysis is ongoing. Tentative findings indicate that primary care health professionals experience barriers and enablers to detection unique in T2DM populations; symptom overlap, perceptions of role and responsibilities, the perceived value of screening in the T2DM population, and integrating screening protocols into T2DM review visits. Additional barriers to depression screening in the T2DM population; mental health stigma, patient-clinician relationship, were pertinent to depression screening in primary care populations more generally. Discussion Findings may (1) improve understanding of how depression can be more appropriately identified in people with T2DM in primary care settings from a health care professional perspective, (2) inform the design of future depression screening interventions or (3) inform depression screening recommendations for people with T2DM. The application of recommended qualitative evidence synthesis approaches i.e. RETREAT, GRADE-CERQual, enhances the overall robustness of the study. The protocol is available at https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/2-26/v2.