In healthcare research, results diffuse only slowly into clinical practice, and there is a need to bridge the gap between research and practice. This study elucidates how healthcare professionals in a hospital setting experience working with the implementation of research results. A descriptive design was chosen. During 2014, 12 interviews were carried out with healthcare professionals representing different roles in the implementation process, based on semi-structured interview guidelines. The analysis was guided by a directed content analysis approach. The initial implementation was non-formalized. In the decision-making and management process, the pattern among nurses and doctors, respectively, was found to be different. While nurses’ decisions tended to be problem-oriented and managed on a person-driven basis, doctors’ decisions were consensus-oriented and managed by autonomy. All, however, experienced a knowledge-based execution of the research results, as the implementation process ended. The results illuminate the challenges involved in closing the evidence-practice gap, and may add to the growing body of knowledge on which basis actions can be taken to ensure the best care and treatment available actually reaches the patient.

Type 2 diabetes and its management affect the patient and the close family potentially causing either psychological distress or increased sense of responsibility and collaboration in these families. Interactions between patient and family play an important role in maintaining lifestyle changes and diabetes self-management. The purpose of this integrative review was to summarise and assess published studies on the intra-family perspective of supportive and non-supportive interactions in families with a type 2 diabetes patient. Included in the review were published qualitative and quantitative studies that examined the intra-family perspective on supportive and non-supportive interactions. We searched the literature from 2000 to 2016 and the search strategy comprised the following databases: Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Psyc-ARTICLES as well as hand searching of reference lists. Quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were undertaken on all included studies. We identified five eligible research papers. Employing content analysis three categories describing interactions were refined: Impact of practical action, impact of emotional involvement, and impact of communication content. Supportive interactions included encouraging communication and family collaboration in managing diet, medications, and blood glucose checking. Non-supportive interactions were visible irritation, nagging behaviour and refusing to share the burden of living with diabetes. The findings stress the importance of including both patient and family in clinical practice to target diabetes self-management adherence and well-being of the whole family. The majority of self-management occurs within the family environment. Therefore, the intra-family perspective of supportive and non-supportive interactions should be understood and addressed as the family members are interdependent and affected by each other. Future research assessing the impact of professional support and the family function will have the potential to improve the daily life and well-being of patients with type 2 diabetes as well as the whole family.

Background: Researchers are obligated to do no harm to participants of research. Conflicts in relationships can cause negative well‐being; therefore, insight is needed into the particular ethical considerations that arise when conducting joint interviews with close relatives or family members simultaneously in the healthcare setting.Aim: To collect and share knowledge related to ethical considerations conducting joint interviews.Design and methods: A literature review inspired by the integrative review method was performed. Data were retrieved through a structured search in PubMed, CINAHL and the Philosopher's Index and Academic Search Premier for articles published in English from 1980 to 2016 and included 18 articles, of a possible 2153. Article content was assessed line‐by‐line, and ethical considerations were extracted and organized in three subgroups regarding: Planning joint interviews; Conduction joint interviews and Reporting on joint interviews Findings: Participants should be offered the best terms for a constructive, on‐going relationship after the joint interview has ended. This obligates the researcher to ensure a safe environment during the joint interview and create a delicate balance between the needs of the participants, using nonconfrontational techniques that foster equal and neutral but dedicated attention to all parties, before, during and after the joint interviews.Conclusion: Specific ethical considerations should be taken into account before, during and after joint interviewing. Further research is needed before a final conclusion can be drawn.