Do you hear any sensible person saying things like
“Don’t look at any television news/read the newspapers or news magazines because they’re full of false information and negativity.” or
“I never go to parties or social gatherings because they’re full of negative people or somebody might say something that’s untrue to me.”
No? Funny that neither do I. Of course the simple and obvious answer to comments like that is to choose your media source and/or your social events more carefully and be discerning about what news or information you view as credible. Continue reading →
It’s always great when a piece of research confirms what you know to be true but others have doubted. It was super good timing when I came across this great finding published just a couple of weeks ago in the Journal of Internet Medical Research, 2017, August 17 19 (8):e 280
Engaged patients increase information flow, expand propagation and deepen engagement in the conversation of tweets compared to physicians and scientists.
The psychosocial aspect of diabetes is a bit like the weather everyone’s always talking, but nobody does a thing about it. Such was my view preceding DX2 Melbourne where I was one of a cast of thousands participating in a webcast about mental health and diabetes.
The consensus view (I think it was unanimous) was that psychosocial care should be normalised as part of diabetes healthcare. I agree 100% with this. I recommend Renza’s post at Diabetogenic about the webinar and particularly the importance of ending the stigma around mental health. Frank of Type 1 Writes was also on the panel and has written insightfully about this topic too. The focus of the panel discussion was on seeking help at times of distress but I’d like to take things one step further than this and talk about
It is my contention that not only does standard diabetes care fail to heed prevention strategies for psychosocial distress but it actually causes or exacerbates mental health issues in people with t1 diabetes.Continue reading →
Healthcare is a highly structured environment and everyone has their assigned rights and responsibilities that belong to those roles. Those within the system are highly motivated to maintain the status quo to keep the forces of chaos subdued.
Diabetes, particularly type 1 is troublesome to the health status quo. For starters none of us can ever be the ideal patient. We can’t be healed in the “you’re good as new” kind of way and the professionals have to hand over their traditional roles to us. We are the ones doing the injections, the blood testing and keeping track of our health. It is little wonder that many professionals view diabetics as troublesome patients.
As if this isn’t bad enough, many of us with diabetes (and other health conditions of course) choose to speak to each other and publicly about living with diabetes and we’ve been able to do so very effectively via social media. This sort of activity is threatening to the system and the gatekeepers want to fight or control it. Continue reading →
DX2Melbourne was a diabetes bloggers conference hosted by Abbott Diabetes Care. My travel and accommodation expenses to attend this conference were paid by Abbott but any opinions expressed are entirely my own and I am under no obligation to blog about the event or any Abbott product.
I recently came across a health/medical article that expressed concern about the level of variation in paediatric diabetes treatment between different paediatric endocrinologists. I thought the assumption that there was one best practice approach interesting especially in light of the statement, Continue reading →
Actually I have no idea why I have diabetes. If I really knew exactly why type 1 occurs I’d be publishing in the BMJ or the NEJM, I just wanted to talk about the language of being a diabetic as opposed to a person with diabetes. Continue reading →
Sometimes Twitter does your head in, and I’m not talking about the trolls.
Last week DiabetesUK tweeted
Possibly seeing a marketing opportunity, @DiabetesAU (NOT it must be noted Diabetes Australia but the twitter handle of Natalie Wischer, who is apparently the CEO of the National Association of Diabetes Centres NADC) was quick to tweet her whole-hearted endorsement-presumably on behalf of NADC, as indicated by the first person plural.
We agree! We will discuss this & more at the Australasian Diabetes Advancements and Technologies Summit (ADATS)
Yippee!! I thought, how great there’s going to be a whole conference on diabetes technology in Australia AND they are totally into patient choice!
I rush off to the link so thoughtfully provided at the end of the tweet to book tickets, only to find this conference is patients excluded. You need a health care provider number to register. So no patient choice here BUT never fear patient choice is going to be discussed by a bunch of doctors and DNEs. My irony meter is going off the scale.
Don’t despair though fellow-patients, despite the ban on our attendance, I’m assured that the patient voice will be heard. One person with diabetes and a health care professional are going to present on this “very important topic”. Ah right, I check the program, a person with diabetes is going to get 5 MINUTES in the program to present the consumer perspective and a psychologist (who doesn’t have diabetes) is going to get 20 MINUTES to speak about psychological impacts.
Whilst I guess 5 minutes is better than no minutes for a consumer voice to be heard-I’ve got to say I find the 5 minute time slot rather insulting, especially as the speaker, @RenzaS is an experienced and professional presenter with many years experience at DAVic and in advocacy, it’s not like she can’t handle a longer time slot. 5 minutes is the allocation for “hearing the patient voice”. Hmmmm.
That aside, however, neither a 5 minute consumer slot or a psychologist presenting professional insights is patient inclusion, nor does it have anything to do with supporting patient choice in technology. Inclusion and patient choice is about allowing patients to access information to enable informed participation in healthcare.
I understand that professional organisations run conferences for their members and sometimes those organisations exclude non-members-it’s their conference after all. I also understand prohibitions on “consumers” attending conferences where drug companies advertise their products.*
This is fine, just don’t boast about your support for patient choice when your implementation of that support is to discuss it at a conference of health care professionals from which patients are deliberately excluded. This just serves to highlight how very keen many professionals are to exclude “patients” from the dialogue of healthcare.
Without access to information, the patient will never be able to take control of their health decisions, I wonder if that’s the real reason we’re excluded, as the old saying goes, knowledge is power.
*@DiabetesAU tweeted to me that patients could not attend because of pharma sponsorship of the event. I have perused the program http://nadc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ADATS-Program-26.6.17-zip.pdf as at 7pm 3rd July 2017 and I can find no disclosure of links to pharmaceutical or other commercial enterprises at all. I would have thought transparency on commercial sponsorship would have been desirable to those attending, it is to me and I’m not even subject to the rules on pharma marketing.
I was one of the many pwd who was stunned back in 2015 when the UK’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued its Guidelines for Type 1 Diabetes in Adults. These guidelines recommended a “target” HBA1c of less than 6.5%. The previous target was 7.5%
What I found stunning was that so few people managed to achieve an a1c of 7.5% or less and yet here they were setting an even lower target. For the record -the UK National Diabetes Audit showed that 29% of adults with type 1 recorded an a1c <7.5% (or 58mmol in the new measure) in 2015/16 AND fewer than one in fifteen (i.e. less than 10% of pwd) recorded an a1c of less than 6.5%.
It makes you wonder what exactly is the point of setting this number, what does it mean and is it sensible to set a target that appears cannot be achieved by 90% of people.