Advocacy is a slow burn. I say those words every day. Usually multiple times. I say it to people with diabetes who are interested in getting into advocacy, not to scare them off, but so they understand that things take time. I say it to established advocates. I say it to people I work with. I say it to people in the diabetes world who want to know why it takes so long for change to happen. I say it to healthcare professionals I’m working with to change policy. I mutter it to myself as a mantra.

Slow. Burn.

But then, there are moments where there is an ignition, and you realise that the slow burn is moving from being nothing more than smouldering embers into something more. And when that happens I can’t wipe the smile of my face and I start jumping up and down. Which is what I was doing in my study at home at 2am, desperately trying to make as little noise as possible so as not to wake my husband and daughter who were sounds asleep in other rooms off the corridor. 

The World Health Organisation conducted the first of its two focus group sessions for people with diabetes yesterday (or rather for me, early this morning), and I was honoured to be part of the facilitating team for this event. In the planning for the questions that would be discussed in the small break out groups, the WHO team had gone to great pains to workshop the language in the questions so they were presented in a way that would encourage the most discussion possible.  That was the start of those embers being stoked.

I think that the attention to how we framed the discussion points meant that people thought about their responses differently. 

The topics last night were about barriers to access of essential diabetes drugs, healthcare and technology. Of course, issues including affordability, health professional workforce, ongoing training and education were highlighted. These are often the most significant barrier that needs to be addressed.

But the discussion went beyond this, and time and time again, people identified stigma and misconceptions about diabetes as a significant barrier to people not being able to get the best for their diabetes. It certainly wasn’t me who mentioned language (at least not first), but communication and language were highlighted as points contributing to that stigma.

This recurring theme came from people from across the globe. It was mentioned as a reason for social exclusion as well as workplace discrimination. There was acknowledgement that perceptions of diabetes as being all about personal responsibility has affected how policy makers as well as community responds to diabetes – how serious they see the condition. 

In the discussion about diabetes-related complications, the overall language had been changed from ‘prevention’ to ‘risk reduction’ and this was recognised in many of the discussions as a far better way to frame conversations and education about complications. This isn’t new – it was a recurring theme when a focus in the DOC was the hashtag #TalkAboutComplications. I wrote and co-wrote several articles about it, including this piece I co-authored with the Grumpy Pumper for BMJ. 

The direction the discussions took were a revelation. No. It was a revolution!

So often at other events and in online debates when language and communication has been raised, conversation has been stalled by people pushing agendas about wanting to be called ‘diabetic’, as if this is the first and only issue that needs to be resolved. That didn’t even come up last night because the people who were highlighting the implications of language understood that when you look at the issues strategically and at a higher level, those details are not what matters. 

What matters is looking at Communication with a capital C and understanding its influence. It elevated the discussion so far above the ‘it’s political correctness and nothing more’ that it would have been ridiculous to drag the discussion back to that level. 

For years, there has been push back regarding communication because people have not stood back and looked at impact. That has changed.

When I wrote this four years ago highlighting that diabetes’ image problem diabetes – all those misconceptions and wrong ideas about the condition – has led to fewer research dollars, less understanding and compassion from the community, more blame and shame levelled at individuals … it was to emphasise that the repercussions have been significant. 

Thankfully as more people started stepping back and considering big picture – health systems, policy, community education – I could see that there were shifts as some people stopped talking about political correctness and started asking what needed to be done to really move the needle. It seems that’s where the very, vast majority of people were during the WHO focus group 

This diabetes #LanguageMatters movement stands on the shoulders not of the people who have elevated the issue in the last ten years (although those contributions have been massive!) or the position papers and guidelines that have been published (although those have certainly aided the discussion in research and HCP spaces), but rather, the people in the diabetes community who, for years, knew that language and communication was a driving factor in our care. People like those in the (Zoom) room yesterday.

Looking for more on #LanguageMatters

Click here for a collection of posts on Diabetogenic.

The Diabetes Australia Language Position Statement (Disclosure: I work at Diabetes Australia and am a co-author on this statement.)

The Diabetes Language Matters website which brings together much of the work that has been done globally on this issue. (Shout out to diabetes advocate Jazz Sethi for her work on this.)

DISCLOSURE

I was invited by the WHO Global Diabetes Compact team to be part of the facilitators at the Focus Group on Advancing the Lived Experience of People Living with Diabetes. I am happily volunteering my time.