The experience of diabetes-related language in diabetes care

32Citations
Citations of this article
84Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective. The goal of this study was to understand how adults with diabetes experience the words used in diabetes care. Methods. This qualitative study guided by Critical Theory used two virtual and two in-person focus groups conducted by the same facilitator. A total of 68 focus group members participated. The facilitator transcribed and coded focus group data using individual responses as the unit of analysis. The facilitator used constant comparison to analyze responses and developed a research summary of themes that emerged. A second coder confirmed the themes originally identified, and participants provided feedback on the summary. Results. Many negative and stigmatizing words are used in diabetes care. Several themes emerged from the data, including judgment; fear and anxiety; labels, reminders, and assumptions; oversimplification and directives; misunderstanding, misinformation, and disconnection; and body language and tone. Participants reported experiencing negative diabetes-related words in the general public, with their health care providers (HCPs), and in the media. Participants made suggestions for HCPs to replace negative words; they raised a concern that current negative words will be replaced by others with similar negative connotations; and they said they would feel more like a partner in their care if HCPs stopped using these words. Conclusion. The language used in diabetes care has an impact on people who live with the disease. Awareness is the first step in eradicating stigma in diabetes care. HCPs can improve patient-provider communication and contribute to a more positive experience for people living with diabetes by choosing words that empower.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dickinson, J. K. (2018). The experience of diabetes-related language in diabetes care. Diabetes Spectrum, 31(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.2337/ds16-0082

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free