The research team, led by Anita Karaca of Biruni University together with Selda Çelik of the University of Health Sciences and Gülden Anataca of Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital, used a descriptive, cross-sectional, and correlational design. Participants completed three instruments: a Patient Information Form capturing demographic and clinical characteristics, the Diabetes Obstacles Questionnaire, which quantifies perceived barriers across multiple domains, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, which distinguishes support from family, friends, and significant others. The mean age of participants was 54.43 years with a standard deviation of 6.85, and the sample was predominantly female at 52.3 percent, married at 96.9 percent, and high school educated at 73.2 percent.

The clinical picture that emerged was sobering. More than half of the patients, 58 percent, were on insulin therapy, yet only 5.5 percent reported exercising regularly, meaning 94.5 percent did not. Adherence to diabetes management was rated as moderate by 88.7 percent of participants, a figure that underscores how even motivated patients struggle to sustain the daily regimen of glucose monitoring, medication timing, dietary restraint, and physical activity that type 2 diabetes demands. The researchers found that the highest scores on the Diabetes Obstacles Questionnaire clustered in two domains: lifestyle changes, with a mean score of 8.49 plus or minus 2.74, and coping with diabetes, at 7.40 plus or minus 2.73. These are not abstract statistical artifacts; they represent the lived friction of reorganizing meals, activity, and emotional responses around a chronic condition.

Social support, measured on the Multidimensional Scale, averaged 48.48 plus or minus 6.76 on a scale where higher scores reflect stronger perceived backing. The highest subscale score came from significant others, at 18.47 plus or minus 2.27, suggesting that spouses, partners, and close confidants were the primary source of emotional and practical reinforcement for these patients. This aligns with a long line of research showing that close relationships buffer the stress of chronic illness, but the new study adds an important nuance about where that buffering actually matters most.

The correlation analysis produced a pattern that resists simple interpretation. Weak positive correlations were found between perceived social support and several barrier subdimensions, meaning that patients reporting more support also reported somewhat higher scores on certain obstacles. This counterintuitive direction could reflect several mechanisms: patients with more visible struggles may elicit more support from their networks, or those embedded in dense family structures may be more aware of the expectations and pressures surrounding their care. Meanwhile, knowledge and belief barriers showed weak negative correlations with social support, indicating that patients who felt better supported tended to report fewer obstacles rooted in misunderstanding the disease or doubting their ability to manage it.

This dissociation between the affective and informational dimensions of support is the study’s most technically interesting contribution. Social support appears to function less as a general lubricant for self-care and more as a targeted corrective for specific cognitive and attitudinal barriers. When family members and significant others reinforce accurate information about diet, medication, and monitoring, patients’ knowledge gaps shrink and their confidence grows. But when the barrier is behavioral, such as the sheer difficulty of overhauling long-standing eating habits or finding time for exercise, support alone does not dissolve the obstacle. The weak positive correlations with certain barrier subdimensions hint that support may even coexist with, rather than eliminate, some practical struggles.

The implications for clinical practice are concrete. The authors conclude that integrating education and counseling with social support resources is crucial for enhancing disease management and sustaining behavioral changes. In practical terms, this means diabetes educators should not assume that a well-supported patient is a well-informed patient, nor that information delivery alone will change behavior. Instead, interventions should be layered: structured education to close knowledge and belief gaps, behavioral coaching to tackle lifestyle inertia, and deliberate mobilization of family and peer networks to sustain motivation between clinic visits. The near-universal lack of regular exercise in this cohort, 94.5 percent, suggests that physical activity counseling deserves particular attention, possibly through family-inclusive walking programs or community-based initiatives that convert social ties into active participation.

The study also carries broader relevance for health systems confronting rising rates of type 2 diabetes. With adherence rated only moderate by most patients and lifestyle change topping the barrier list, the findings reinforce a growing consensus that diabetes care cannot be reduced to pharmacotherapy. Insulin regimens, oral agents, and glucose monitoring are necessary but insufficient without parallel attention to the psychological and social context in which patients live. The researchers’ use of validated multidimensional instruments, rather than single-item questions, gives the findings technical weight, allowing clinicians and policymakers to see precisely which domains of barrier and support are at play rather than relying on vague impressions of patient noncompliance.

Conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital under approval number 2023.09.116, the study obtained written informed consent from all participants and received no specific external funding. As a cross-sectional snapshot of a single outpatient clinic, it cannot establish causality, and the weak correlation coefficients caution against overinterpreting the strength of any single association. Yet the direction of the findings is clear enough to guide practice: social support is a real and measurable asset in diabetes care, but it works best when paired with targeted education and behavioral strategies. For the hundreds of millions living with type 2 diabetes worldwide, the message is both humbling and hopeful, the people around you matter, but so does the specific kind of help they provide.

Subject of Research: Barriers to diabetes management and perceived social support among patients with type 2 diabetes

Article Title: Barriers to diabetes management and perceived social support among patients with type 2 diabetes

Article References: Karaca, A., Çelik, S., & Anataca, G. (2026). Barriers to diabetes management and perceived social support among patients with type 2 diabetes. BMC Endocrine Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-026-02669-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12902-026-02669-1

Keywords: Barriers, diabetes, management, perceived, social, support, patients, type, scientific research