4.3 Article

'I wish my health professionals understood that it's not just all about your HbA1c!'. Qualitative responses from the second Diabetes MILES - Australia (MILES-2) study

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 971-981

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.14199

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Optimal diabetes management requires daily selfmanagement. While little time is spent with health professionals, they can have a substantial impact on how a person manages and feels about living with diabetes. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore what people with diabetes wish their health professionals understood about living with diabetes. Methods Thematic analysis was conducted of responses to a single open-ended question, 'What do you wish your health professional understood about living with diabetes?', which was part of the Diabetes MILES-2 survey, assessing the psychological and behavioural aspects of living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Australian adults. Results In total, 1316 responses (56% response rate) were collected, with 1190 responses included for analysis (54% from respondents with type 1 diabetes, 46% from those with type 2 diabetes). Seven major themes emerged; respondents wished their health professional understood: 1) the potential barriers to diabetes management; 2) that it is 'easier said than done'; 3) the social/emotional impact; 4) that they want, need and deserve more; 5) that judgements, assumptions and negative perspective are not helpful; 6) more about diabetes; and 7) that the respondent is the expert in his/her diabetes. Other comments suggested satisfactory experiences with health professionals, highlighting that some respondents had no wish for their health professional to understand more. Conclusions This study highlights that, although some adults with diabetes are satisfied with their health professionals' understanding of living with diabetes, many report unmet needs and perceive a lack of person-centred care from their health professionals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据