Person-first language in diabetes and obesity scientific publications

Physicians' stigmatizing attitudes about individuals with type 2 diabetes: Associations with communication practices and perceived barriers to care

AIMS

The stigma of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has received growing attention in the healthcare setting. However, there has been almost no research examining how healthcare professional biases about diabetes relate to patient care. This cross-sectional study examined how physicians' self-reported biases, stereotypes, and attributions about diabetes and obesity were related to their patient care practices.

METHODS

Physicians treating T2D, specializing in internal medicine or endocrinology (n=205), completed a battery of online questionnaires.

RESULTS

Physicians who attributed poor patient compliance as the primary barrier to provision of diabetes care had worse perceptions of individuals with T2D and were less likely to use person-centered approaches with their patients. Physicians' stigmatizing attitudes about T2D were associated with less use of person-first language, while more positive perceptions of individuals with T2D were associated with greater use of motivational interviewing. Weight-related stigma was associated with less use of person-centered approaches to care and less confidence in their ability to provide care.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings reiterate the associations between weight stigma and poorer physician communication and suggest that similar patterns occur in the provision of care for individuals with T2D. Physicians who treat T2D may benefit from stigma reduction interventions for both diabetes and weight-related stigmas.

Predictors of the severity of the course of COVID-19: demographic factors, clinical signs and laboratory markers

Introduction. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on global healthcare, with high mortality and severe complications remaining a major concern. Understanding the predictors of COVID-19 severity may improve patient management and outcomes. While considerable research has focused on the pathogenesis of the virus and vaccine development, the identification of reliable demographic, clinical and laboratory predictors of severe disease remains critical.Hypothesis. Specific demographic factors, clinical signs and laboratory markers can reliably predict the severity of COVID-19. A comprehensive analysis integrating these predictors could provide a more accurate prognosis and guide timely interventions.Aim. The aim of this study is to identify and evaluate the demographic, clinical and laboratory factors that can serve as reliable predictors of severe COVID-19, thereby aiding in the prediction and prevention of adverse outcomes.Methodology. The methods of analysis, synthesis, generalization and descriptive statistics were used to achieve this objective.Results. The analysis showed that demographic factors such as age over 60 and male sex are significant predictors of severe COVID-19. Clinical predictors include respiratory symptoms, especially dyspnoea, and comorbidities such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, asthma, diabetes mellitus and obesity. Laboratory markers with high prognostic value include elevated levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, ferritin, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, d-dimer, aspartate aminotransferase enzyme and decreased lymphocyte count.Conclusion. The study concludes that a holistic approach incorporating demographic, clinical and laboratory data is essential to accurately predict the severity of COVID-19. This integrated model may significantly improve patient prognosis by facilitating early identification of high-risk individuals and allowing timely, targeted interventions. The results highlight the importance of comprehensive patient assessment in managing and mitigating the impact of COVID-19.

"I feel like I'm being talked to like an equal": Diabetes language matters to adults with diabetes, a mixed-methods study

AIM

To explore reactions to and preferences for words/phrases used in communications about diabetes among adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes.

METHODS

Eligible adults (aged 18+ years) living with diabetes, or parenting a child with diabetes, were recruited via social media to complete an online cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey. Study-specific items were used to examine 22 commonly used diabetes words/phrases in terms of participants' cognitive perceptions ('helpful', 'respectful', 'accurate', 'harmful', 'judgmental' and 'inaccurate') and emotional reactions ('optimistic', 'motivated', 'supported', 'understood', 'offended', 'blamed', 'distressed' and 'angry'). Open-ended questions invited further feedback on (non-)preferred language and its impact(s). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 865) included adults with diabetes (type 1: n = 519; type 2: n = 180, other types: n = 48) and parents of children with diabetes (n = 118). Words/phrases most commonly associated with negative perceptions/emotional responses were 'non-compliant' (60% judgmental; 47% felt blamed) and '…good/bad' (54% judgmental; 43% blamed). Positive perceptions were reported for 'managing diabetes' (73% helpful, 47% felt understood), 'person with diabetes' (72% respectful; 49% understood), '…within/outside target range' (60% helpful, 44% understood), and 'condition' (58% respectful; 43% understood). Participants' qualitative responses illuminated perceptions, experiences and impacts across five themes: (1) accuracy and simplicity; (2) identity; (3) blame, judgement and stigma; (4) respect and trust and; (5) support, hope and feeling understood. Themes were consistent across diabetes types.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide novel evidence into (non-)preferred, and potential (negative and positive) impacts of, commonly used diabetes words/phrases, supporting the international #LanguageMatters movement.

Embedding Public Involvement in a PhD Research Project With People Affected by Advanced Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Liver disease is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom and can be challenging to live with in the advanced stages. There has been little research exploring the healthcare experiences of UK individuals with decompensated disease when the liver cannot carry out its functions properly. A PhD research project was developed with people who have liver disease to explore care experiences in decompensated advanced liver disease. Public involvement (PI) is an essential aspect of meaningful health research, and this paper reports on the progression of our PI approach in this ongoing study.

OBJECTIVE

To embed PI throughout the research project to ensure that the study is meaningful to individuals with liver disease and the people who support them.

METHODS

The research adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to develop a theory of care experience. Various PI approaches were considered in developing the PI strategy for this qualitative study. Initially, Embedded consultation was the preferred model, which has evolved to include aspects of collaboration and coproduction. A PI group was set up to oversee the project through the national public engagement website VOICE, and reflections on PI from three members of the group are included in this paper to illuminate the PI process.

RESULTS

Six individuals with liver disease and three carers from across the United Kingdom are part of an ongoing PI group. Their role includes commenting on the findings of the systematic literature review for this project and contributing to decisions about recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Additionally, they had a direct impact on changing the focus of the research. The PI group will continue involvement until the completion of the project.

CONCLUSION

Successfully embedding PI into doctoral research, as demonstrated in this project, requires commitment, planning and dedication to reciprocal working for the benefit of PI contributors as well as the research. This approach could be adopted by other postgraduate researchers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This project is overseen by the PI group, whose contribution is described throughout, including reflections from three PI group members.

Obesity

Obesity is a common condition and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Fortunately, weight loss treatment can reduce obesity-related complications. This review summarizes the evidence-based strategies physicians can employ to identify, prevent, and treat obesity, including best practices to diagnose and counsel patients, to assess and address the burden of weight-related disease including weight stigma, to address secondary causes of weight gain, and to help patients set individualized and realistic weight loss goals and an effective treatment plan. Effective treatments include lifestyle modification and adjunctive therapies such as antiobesity medications and metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Bringing an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination: an international consensus statement on evidence and recommendations

People with diabetes often encounter stigma (ie, negative social judgments, stereotypes, prejudice), which can adversely affect emotional, mental, and physical health; self-care, access to optimal health care; and social and professional opportunities. To accelerate an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination, an international multidisciplinary expert panel (n=51 members, from 18 countries) conducted rapid reviews and participated in a three-round Delphi survey process. We achieved consensus on 25 statements of evidence and 24 statements of recommendations. The consensus is that diabetes stigma is driven primarily by blame, perceptions of burden or sickness, invisibility, and fear or disgust. On average, four in five adults with diabetes experience diabetes stigma and one in five experience discrimination (ie, unfair and prejudicial treatment) due to diabetes, such as in health care, education, and employment. Diabetes stigma and discrimination are harmful, unacceptable, unethical, and counterproductive. Collective leadership is needed to proactively challenge, and bring an end to, diabetes stigma and discrimination. Consequently, we achieved unanimous consensus on a pledge to end diabetes stigma and discrimination.

Language Frames and Shapes the Response to Obesity

Because the scientific understanding of obesity has grown, explicit expressions of weight bias have steadily become less acceptable. However, implicit weight bias and stigma remain common impediments to health. Language frames the public perception of obesity. It is problematic when public discourse or scientific publications reflect misinformation or bias against people with obesity because this can promote stigma and barriers to health. Examples of stigmatizing language include descriptions of obesity as an identity rather than a disease, language that describes obesity as a crisis or a cause for panic, and excessive focus on weight or appearance rather than health outcomes.