This project aimed to codesign a preclinic screening tool, the Diabetes Priorities Questionnaire (DPQ), for people with type 2 diabetes and their healthcare teams. The stated objective was to enable patients and clinicians to identify priorities and needs before appointments so consultations could be more efficient and patient centred.
A participatory codesign methodology was used, centred on iterative focus groups. Patients and healthcare professionals co-developed and refined the DPQ through moderated semistructured discussions. The process emphasised collaborative problem solving: participants reviewed initial questions, identified challenges, proposed solutions and informed successive revisions of the tool.
The study took place in Western Sydney, Australia, an area described as having high socioeconomic disadvantage and cultural diversity. Recruitment included both a public hospital-based outpatient diabetes service and community-based providers.
Participants comprised 18 people across five focus groups: 10 adults with type 2 diabetes and 8 healthcare professionals. The clinician group included specialists, diabetes educators, general practitioners, dietitians and pharmacists.
Focus groups were delivered in a hybrid format with both in-person and online attendance. Discussions were semistructured and organised around four predefined topics:
Feedback was recorded using audio recordings and field notes. Participants were invited to review the initial question set and provide constructive feedback to enhance clarity, relevance and practicality.
Insights from each focus group informed subsequent versions of the DPQ. The iterative approach allowed the research team to adapt question order, wording and included topics based on real-world perspectives from both patients and multidisciplinary clinicians.
The process emphasised practical usability and accessibility considerations so that the tool could be realistically implemented in routine preconsultation workflows.
Participants identified several opportunities to improve the initial questionnaire. Key recommended changes included:
These suggestions were intended to make the DPQ more clinically meaningful, easier for patients to complete and more useful for multidisciplinary teams during consultations.
Participants highlighted the need to provide multiple formats to maximise accessibility. Both digital and paper-based versions were recommended so that people with differing access to technology and preferences could use the DPQ.
Accessibility and cultural diversity in the study setting motivated these format recommendations. Ensuring the tool could be completed before clinic visits and integrated into existing workflows was viewed as important for uptake.
Following codesign revisions, the final DPQ was digitised and incorporated within a patient care portal. The digital version was linked to tailored diabetes education content so that identified priorities could be matched to relevant resources.
Digitisation was presented as a means to enable preconsultation screening and to support multidisciplinary teams in delivering more focused, patient-centred consultations.
The codesign process produced a DPQ that participants judged to be more user friendly, relevant and accessible after iterative refinement. The study reports feasibility and acceptability of a preclinic tool developed with direct input from people with type 2 diabetes and a range of clinicians.
The source explicitly states that further research is required to evaluate the DPQ’s impact on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and healthcare efficiency. The article did not report quantitative outcome data, psychometric testing of the questionnaire, or measured implementation outcomes; these details were not provided in the source.
The DPQ offers a structured way to surface patient priorities before consultations and to align appointments with patient-identified needs. Multidisciplinary teams may use a digitised preclinic tool linked to education resources to support more patient-centred care. However, evidence of effect on clinical endpoints and service efficiency remains to be established through future research.