Thank you for writing up this important piece of work. I enjoyed reviewing it. I would recommend some comments for the authors to consider.

Abstract:
Line 11- numbers of stakeholders should be in the result section not in the methods section. More data about recruitment and analysis could be added to this section.
Line 36- the study impact could be more informative and deep. For example, how does your study help in understanding the factors, and what suggestions could the study offer for good clinical impact?
Line 46- please be aware of consistency in font type.
Line 53: what about insulin injection to be added to the keywords?

The study
What kind of reporting guidelines was followed by authors to write this paper?

Sample/Participants
line 38- It is not clear how these two models supported the process.

Data collection
line 8 page 5- Could you reflect on how using phone and audio conference affected could affect the study results compared with using video conferences or in-person? This could be highlighted in the limitation section. interviews.

Data analysis:
Line 35 page 5- I think this section needs more work. How the reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. Was it inductive, deductive, or both? Could the authors explain how the analysis was reflexive...It is not clear how reflexive analysis was used to find mature themes and sub-themes. How the researcher anlysed the data using reflexive TA rather than a traditional TA.

Discussion
It would be preferable to have one sentence to highlight the study's aim before highlighting the main results.

1) Reporting guidelines should be under THE Study section not in the abstract.
2) In the Sample/Participants Section- Please clarify how the two models supported the process.

Thank you for writing up this important piece of work and thanks for considering all the comments to make it much better. I enjoyed reviewing it.