You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Communication’ category.
There’s been quite a bit of discussion after yesterday’s post about a recent consultation I did with a creative agency looking to develop a campaign about diabetes-related complications. I try to be solutions oriented and offer ideas, rather than just swoop in and be critical, so with that in mind, I’ve put together a couple of checklists that may be of some assistance when thinking about ways to talk about complications.
Of course, as always, these are just my suggestions and others may completely disagree with them, or having more to add. But this is a start that can be considered, shared and built on. And it comes with the ever present reminder that people with diabetes deserve to see themselves represented in ways that don’t make us want to run for the hills or hide under the doona (duvet) and never come out. That’s always a really good place to start!
‘What would the ideal campaign about diabetes complications look like?’
What a loaded question, I thought. I was in a room full of creative consultants who wanted to have a chat with me about a new campaign they had been commissioned to develop. I felt like I was being interrogated. I was on one side of a huge table in a cavernous boardroom and opposite me, sat half a dozen consultants with digital notepads, dozens of questions, and eager, smiley looks on their faces. And very little idea of what living with diabetes is truly about, or just how fraught discussions about diabetes complications can be.
I sighed. I already had an idea of what their campaign would look like. I knew because more than two decades working as a diabetes advocate means I’ve seen a lot of it before.
‘Well,’ I started circling back to their question. ‘Probably nothing like what you have on those storyboards over there’. I indicated to the easels that had been placed around the room, each holding a covered-over poster. The huge smiles hardened a little.
Honestly, I have no idea why I get invited to these consultations. I make things very hard for the people on the other side of the table (or Zoom screen, or panel, or wherever these discussions take place).
I suppose I get brought in because I am known for being pretty direct and have lots of experience. And I don’t care about being popular or pleasing people. There is rarely ambiguity in my comments, and I can get to the crux of issue very quickly. Plus, consulting means getting paid by the hour and I can sum things up in minutes rather than an afternoon of workshops, and that means they get me in and out of the door without needing to feed me. I think the industry term for it is getting more bang for their buck.
I suggested that we start with a different question. And that question is this: ‘How do you feel when it is time for a diabetes complication screening’.
One of the consultants asked why that was a better question. I explained that it was important to understand just how people feel when it comes to discussions about complications and from there, learn how people feel when it’s time to be screened for them.
‘The two go hand in hand. I mean, if you are going to highlight the scary details of diabetes complications, surely you understand that will translate into people not necessarily rushing to find out more details.’
I told them the story I’ve told hundreds of times before – the story of my diagnosis and the images I was shown to convey all the terrible things that my life had in store now. Twenty-five years later, dozens and dozens of screening checks behind me, and no significant complication diagnosis to date, and yet, the anxiety I feel when I know it’s time for me to get my kidneys screened, or my eyes checked sends me into a spiral of fret and worry that hasn’t diminished at all over time. In fact, if anything, it has increased because of the way that we are reminded that the longer we have diabetes, the more likely we are to get complications. There is no good news here!
‘But people aren’t getting checked. They know they should, and they don’t. And some don’t know they need to. Or even that there are complications,’ came the reply from the other side of the table.
Now it was me whose face hardened.
‘Let’s unpack that for a moment,’ I said. ‘You have just made a very judgemental statement about people with diabetes. I don’t do judgement in diabetes, but if you want to lay blame, where should it lie? If you’re telling me that people don’t know they need to get checked or that there are diabetes complications, whose fault is that?’
I waited.
‘Blaming people or finding fault does nothing. That’s not going to help us here. You’ve been tasked to develop something that informs people with diabetes about complications – scary, terrifying, horrible, often painful – complications. Do you really want to open that discussion by blaming people?’
Yes, I know that not everyone with diabetes knows all about complications, and there genuinely are people out there who do not fully understand why screening is important, or what screening looks like. The spectrum of diabetes lived experience means there are people with a lot of knowledge and people with very little. But regardless of where people sit on that spectrum, complications must be spoken about with sensitivity and care.
The covers came off the posters around the room, and I was right. I’d seen it all before. There were stats showing rates of complications. More stats of how much complications cost. More stats of how many people are not getting screened for complications. More stats showing how complications can be prevented if only people got screened.
‘Thanks, I hate it,’ I thought to myself silently.
I spent the next half an hour tearing to shreds everything on those storyboards. We talked about putting humanity into the campaign and remembering that people with diabetes are already dealing with a whole lot, and adding worry and mental burden is not the way to go. I reminded them that telling us again and again and again, over and over and over the awful things that will happen to us is counterproductive. It doesn’t motivate us. It doesn’t encourage us to connect with our healthcare team. And it certainly doesn’t enamour us to whoever it is behind the campaign.
I wrapped my feedback in a bow and sent a summary email to the consultants the following day, emphatically pointing out that I am only one person with diabetes and that my comments shouldn’t be taken as gospel. Rather they should speak with lots of people with diabetes to get a sense of how many people feel. I urged them again to resist using scare tactics, or meaningless statistics. I reminded them that all aspects of the campaign – even those that might not be directed at people with diabetes – will be seen by us and we will be impacted by it. I asked that they centre people with diabetes in their work about diabetes.
But mostly, I reminded that anything to do with complications has real implications for people with diabetes. What may be a jaunt in the circus of media and PR for creative agencies is our real life. And our real life is not a media stunt.
Disclosure
I operate a freelance health consultancy. I was paid for this work because my expertise, just as the expertise of everyone with lived experience, is worth its weight in gold and we should be compensated (i.e. paid!) for it.
Four weeks. That’s about how long ago it was that the first murmurings of Fiasp being withdrawn from the PBS were heard in the Australian diabetes community.
It’s been a pretty wild ride in those four weeks, hasn’t it? I never should be surprised at the dedication and never-say-die attitude of diabetes communities, but what we saw from the Australian community was next level! And it went beyond that, with Aussie advocates rallying our friends from overseas (hello #dedoc° Voices!) to amplify our efforts here.
And today, news of a reprieve. Fiasp would be available on the PBS for another 6 months for anyone with a script dated prior to 1 April 2023. (That’s the catch – you need a script before that date, or you will have to pay the private prescription cost.)
This is a great result. It gives everyone with diabetes using Fiasp some breathing space to make plans for what happens if we need to change insulins.
There are a lot of beautiful things about grassroots advocacy. Firstly, it can be incredibly responsive. It takes just one person to share, and the community response is often instantaneous.
We saw that here, didn’t we. As soon as it was just a hint about what was going on with Fiasp, people with diabetes in Australia took to it. This was even before the Minister’s office was aware of what was happening! From a petition (amazing, Belinda!), blog posts and discussions in social media groups, to standing around conference exhibition halls (this is exactly what was going on at ATTD with Aussie advocates!) the momentum started and picked up speed.
It is undeniable that the best results happen when everyone works together, and as I said in my post about this issue a couple of weeks ago, …Community advocacy is often the starting point of rumblings that, combined with strong advocacy from diabetes organisations, leads to policy change.
This is a dazzling example of exactly that! A community of all stakeholders coming together, led by community. Doesn’t THAT make you feel all warm and fuzzy? And today, people with diabetes have celebrated in great ways – the people who should be centred in this win for their efforts. This was my tweet about that earlier today:
Some final thoughts
Celebrate the win and cheer with other community advocates. I’ve loved seeing the commentary in online community groups today! Our celebrations are so meaningful because it is our fridges that were going to be bare of Fiasp if this didn’t come through!!
I know it’s tempting to stockpile, but please don’t! There are 14,000 Australians using Fiasp and hopefully everyone who needs to get a script filled over the next six months will be able to do so effortlessly. Of course there is the human urge to make sure we don’t run out but remember that if you have a year’s supply in the fridge, that might mean someone can’t get their next week’s supply.
This isn’t done yet! Six months is AWESOME but keep the pressure up with the grassroots efforts that worked this time.
I don’t know when it was that I decided that I wasn’t fighting diabetes anymore. Maybe it had something to do with paying more attention to language and words, or maybe it was just accepting that no matter what the strategy, no matter how much I fight, diabetes is there.
Everywhere I turn in the diabetes world, I see words that invoke battle. It is, quite frankly, exhausting. We use terms like warrior, fighter and army and challenger. We are urged to fight the good fight and battle to beat everything diabetes throws at us.
But if this is a war, I was enlisted with no option of being a conscientious objector. I feel defeated a lot of the time because no matter how much I fight, diabetes is still here, coming at me. An in range A1c, or high percentage TIR, or screening check that comes back with ‘no changes’ doesn’t mean I’ve overcome diabetes. Diabetes remains, despite what the metrics say.
We’ve all read legends and seen enough movies to know that there are winners and losers in battles and wars. And understand the good guys are meant to win. But there is no defeating diabetes. It is always going to be there. Does that make me a loser? Does that make me the bad guy?
When I started to examine the militarised language in diabetes, I realised that those very words and ideas that I’m sure were meant to motivate ended up doing the exact opposite. How was it that despite all my efforts in the trenches – and my dogged, gritty determination – I still found myself just as challenged by diabetes as when the battle started? In fact, in some ways, I felt more challenged. I wasn’t advancing in ways that made me feel like I was heading to victory. Instead, it just felt like a static, never-ending, Groundhog Day of lather, rinse, repeat (or check, bolus, repeat).
Asking me to fight puts the responsibility – more responsibility – squarely on me and me alone. How unfair that rhetoric about diabetes requires more from us.
To be at war with diabetes is to be at war with myself. I can’t divorce myself from my diabetes – it is me and I am it. We are a tag team, a group package, a two-for-one deal. I don’t get a say in that, and no one else does either, no matter how much they implore me to fight.
It’s not a battle with diabetes that I need. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. It’s finding peace. That’s what I want to work towards – a peaceful existence that doesn’t add more burden.
If you google the words ‘diabetes public health campaign’, you will find myriad offerings from around the world. There are the good, the bad and the outright ugly. (Click on links at your own peril.) And many of these campaigns are the foundation of broader messaging about diabetes.
Why is it so hard to get messaging about diabetes right, and how do we fix years of getting it wrong?
The vast majority of type 2 diabetes messaging focuses on personal responsibility. It could be about losing weight, losing centimetres off your waist circumference, eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, being more active … you name it, it’s up to YOU.
It’s not just type 2 diabetes. Messaging aimed at addressing specific diabetes-related complications for all brands of diabetes also has a strong focus on personal responsibility: get screened/talk to your HCP/don’t miss appointments/don’t bury your head in the sand/look after yourself. The implication is that all accountability lies at the hands of the person with diabetes.
There are so many assumptions and that is one reason the messaging really hasn’t worked. There are more reasons, of course, and these are complex, multifaceted, and convoluted. You can almost understand why going with the easy ‘fix yourself’ messages are the ones that have been used.
The thinking behind so much of what we think and do about diabetes is misguided because too often we look to apply solutions that are medical in nature when we need to be considering social solutions. In a recently published New York Times article, writer Roni Caryn Rabin suggested a need to reframe (type 2 ) diabetes ‘…as a social, economic and environmental problem, and offer[s] a series of detailed fixes, ranging from improving access to healthy food and clean water to rethinking the designs of communities, housing and transportation networks.’
Telling people to eat better without establishing if there is affordable fresh food available and affordable, and the knowledge for what to do with a box from a farmers’ market, or to walk for half an hour a day without first asking about safe and accessible walking paths, leaves out a very big part of the equation. Assuming people have those structures in place is naïve, and yet that is what is assumed time and time again.
And telling people to not miss screening appointments lest they develop a diabetes complication is perfectly sound advice. Provided there are health professionals available, accessible, and affordable within decent timeframes. It takes only a cursory glance on Twitter to see that people with diabetes have difficulties when it comes to making those important appointments – and, for many, that’s been even worse with COVID.
Individual responsibility goes only so far when there aren’t the social and system structures around to support individuals. And it doesn’t go anywhere when generic messaging is the only messaging employed with the expectation that everyone will respond, and act as directed. Because there’s no time for nuance in a snappy campaign message.
We see time and time again that vulnerable people are disproportionately affected when it comes to health outcomes. In diabetes, we talk about high-risk groups, but what is the point of that if there are no solutions that are targeted for specific cohorts? Plus, if the at-risk messaging is thrown into the mix of the ‘fix yourself’ messaging, it gets very murky. Are people also now meant to be personally responsible for their backgrounds, age, family history…?
Messaging doesn’t only live on the websites and socials of those creating them. There is often a PR machine behind them that does its dark PR arts magic to get the message out there beyond those confines. News outlets pick them up and run, run, run with the messaging, dumbing it down to soundbites that often focus on anything that will get cut through. And often that’s the ‘fix yourself’ messaging.
And of course, the flow on effect of that is more blame, more shame, more stigma, more misinformation, more judgement, more discrimination. More people in the community not familiar and intimately connected with diabetes believing they’ve learnt something new, but really, they’ve probably only added more about how lacking people with diabetes are when it comes to personal responsibility. And on they go to perpetuate the myths about diabetes and personal responsibility.
The times the messaging is right is when people with diabetes are directly involved in developing and finessing it. We can predict the ramifications of messaging gone wrong because we’ve been on the receiving end of it. There’s never not a good time to engage people with diabetes, and I’ll always, always advocate that. It’s good policy because #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs.
But in the case of developing messages about diabetes, engaging people with diabetes can reduce harm to us. And surely that should be the starting (and middle and end) point for anyone doing anything about diabetes.
How are two separate Twitter incidents in the DOC related when one was started after someone without diabetes made some pretty horrid comments about diabetes and the other was a conversation diminishing the whole language matters movement to something far less significant and important than what it is truly about.
Let’s examine the two.
EXHIBIT A
Sometime over the weekend, someone I’d never heard of came out with some pretty stigmatising commentary about diabetes. This person doesn’t have diabetes. But hey – joking about diabetes is perfectly okay because, why not? Everyone else does it. Jump on the bandwagon!
She deleted her original tweet after several folks with diabetes pointed out just how and why she was wrong. And also, how stigmatising she was being.
In lands where all is good and happy, that would have been the end of it. We would have moved on, lived happily for a bit, until the next person decided to use diabetes as a punchline.
But no. She decided to double down and keep going. It was all bizarre and so out of touch with what the reality of diabetes is, but perhaps the most bizarre and startling of all was her declaration that there is no stigma associated with diabetes. Well, knock me down with a feather because I’m pretty sure that not only is diabetes stigma very real, but I’ve been working on different projects addressing this stigma for well over a decade now.
EXHIBIT B
At the same time this mess was happening, there was a discussion by others in the DOC about being called a person with diabetes versus being called (a) diabetic. I’m pretty sure it was a new conversation, but it may have been the same one that played out last month. And the month before that, and a dozen times last year. Honestly, to me, this conversation is the very definition of bashing my head against a brick wall. If you’ve played in the DOC Twitter playground you would have seen it. It goes something like this:
‘I want to be called diabetic.’
‘I don’t care what others say, I like person with diabetes.’
‘Why should I be told what to call myself?’
‘I am more than my diabetes which is why I like PWD.’
‘My diabetes does define me in some ways, which is why I like diabetic.’
(And a million variations on this. Rinse. Repeat.)
I have no idea why it keeps happening, because I’m pretty sure that at no time has anyone said that people with diabetes should align their language with guidance or position statements to do with language. I’m also pretty sure that at no point in those statements does it say that people with diabetes/diabetics (whatever floats your boat) must refer to themselves in a certain way. And it’s always been pretty clear that those adjacent to (but not living with) diabetes should be guided by what those with lived experience want.
AND it’s also been pointed out countless times that it’s not about single words. It’s about changing attitudes and behaviours and addressing the misconceptions about diabetes. And yet, for some, it keeps coming back to this binary discussion that fails to advance any thinking, or change anything at all.
Is there a great discussion to be had about person-first versus identity-first language? Absolutely. And looking at long-term discussions in the community there are some truly fascinating insights about how language has changed and how people have changed with it. But does it serve anyone to continue with the untrue rhetoric that people interested in language are forcing people with diabetes / diabetics (your choice!) to think one way? Nope. Not at all. It’s untrue, and completely disingenuous.
These two seemingly separate situations are connected. And that is completely apparent to people who are able to step back and step above the PWD / diabetic thing. People who know nothing about diabetes keep punching down because they think diabetes is fair game. And people with diabetes are the ones who are left to deal with these stigmatising and nasty attitudes.
I woke this morning to this tweet from Partha Kar.
I was grateful for the tag here because the frustration Partha has expressed mirrors the frustration I am feeling on the other side of the world.
I don’t know why this keeps coming up, I really don’t. I honestly do think that most people understand that we talk language in relation to stigma and to discrimination and to access. That was how it was addressed at the WHO diabetes focus groups earlier this year. That is how it was addressed at the #dedoc° symposium at ATTD. It is how the discussion flowed in last year’s Global Diabetes Language Matters Summit. Most understand that these issues are far more pressing.
If people want to keep banging a drum about the diabetes versus diabetic thing, that’s fine. But I reckon that many of us have moved well beyond that now as we seek to address ways to change the way people think and behave about diabetes so that we stop being the butt of jokes or collateral of people punching down on Twitter.
This morning on ABC Melbourne’s Conversation Hour, the topic was how people are using the internet to self-diagnose mental health conditions using TikTok. Apparently, HCPs are seeing more people claiming to have undiagnosed mental health conditions based on videos they’ve seen on the app.
The question being posed in the discussion was this: Are Dr Google and TikTok helping raise awareness of mental health conditions or misleading millions of viewers?
‘Oh’, I thought. ‘We’re having this conversation. AGAIN’, as the hosts were engaged in a bit of pearl clutching and assumption-making. I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at the suspicion and cynicism I was hearing. Sure. It might be a different health condition and a different social media platform, but haven’t we been doing this for years? For DECADES?
Yes. Yes, we have.
The gist of the discussion today was questioning just how safe and sensible it is for people to use TikTok videos as a basis of self-diagnosing ADHD and other mental health conditions. The people in these videos are sharing their experiences and their symptoms, and others are recognising what they see. As a result, increasing numbers of people are heading off to their GP or a psychologist in the belief they have ADHD. Are these videos a good thing? Or is it misleading and dangerous?
There were stories of lived experience – people sharing how they had seen something on social media and used that as the springboard to find answers to health questions they have. And others explaining how difficult it had been to get help in the first place, often after having been dismissed for years.
Social media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Even if someone does self-diagnose – correctly or incorrectly – they still need to see a healthcare professional to find the right treatment and care. That’s certainly the case when it comes to diabetes. So much of what I have learnt about different treatments or devices has come directly from the community, but in almost all cases, I then need to see a HCP to actually access that new therapy. I can’t write myself a prescription if I want to try a new insulin. In most cases, new tech also needs a HCP sign off, especially if you want to access subsidy programs.
I’ve come to learn that a good healthcare professional is one who considers Dr Google a colleague rather than a threat. Those who grimace and dismiss someone who walks into their office with the announcement ‘I’ve been googling’ is really just admitting that they believe they are still the oracle of all information; information to be disseminated when they decide it’s time and in the way they believe is right for the individual.
We have moved on from that.
And surely we have moved on from the idea that social media is evil and highly distrustful. I’ve been writing and speaking about this for over ten years. In fact, in 2013, I wrote this in a post: ‘The diabetes social media world does not need to be scary and regarded with suspicion. The role of HCPs is not under threat because PWD are using social media – that’s not what it’s for. It is just the 2.0 version of peer support.’
I so wished that the discussion I listened to this morning had started with a different framing. Instead of highlighting how social media in healthcare could be problematic, they could have emphasised just how empowering and positive it can be for people to recognise themselves on social media. How seeing those stories and hearing those experiences normalise what we see in ourselves, and how they can help us find the right words for what it is that we have been thinking and direction for what to do next.
It’s not social media and online health discussions that are going to make HCPs redundant. Rather, it’s their refusal to understand just how important and useful these sorts of communications and communities can be. In a post in2016 I referred to it all as a ‘modern day kitchen table’. Sure that kitchen table now looks like a TikTok video, a Twitter discussion or an Instagram reel. But learning from others living similar lives isn’t new. And neither is searching for answers using something like Dr Google. It’s sustaining. And for so many, essential.
Throughout ATTD I got to repeatedly tell an origin story that led us to this year’s #dedoc° symposium. I’ve told the story here before, but I’m going to again for anyone new, or anyone who is after a refresher.
It’s 2015 and EASD in Stockholm. A group of people with diabetes are crowded together in the overheated backroom of a cafe in the centre of the city. Organising and leading this catch up is Bastian Hauck who, just a few years earlier, brought people from the german-based diabetes community together online (in tweet chats) and for in person events. His idea here was that anyone with diabetes, or connected to the conference, from anywhere in the world, could pop in and share what they were up to that was benefitting their corner of the diabetes world. I’ll add that this was a slightly turbulent time in some parts of the DOC in Europe. Local online communities were feeling the effects of some bitter rifts. #docday° wasn’t about that, and it wasn’t about where you were from either. It was about providing a platform for people with diabetes to network and share and give and get support.
And that’s exactly what happened. Honestly, I can’t remember all that much of what was spoken about. I do remember diabetes advocate from Sweden, Josephine, unabashedly stripping down to her underwear to show off the latest AnnaPS designs – a range of clothing created especially to comfortably and conveniently house diabetes devices. It won’t come as a surprise to many people that I spoke about language and communication, and the work Diabetes Australia was doing in this space and how it was the diabetes community that was helping spread the word.
I also remember the cardamom buns speckled with sugar pearls, but this is not relevant to the story, and purely serving as a reminder to find a recipe and make some.
So there we were, far away from the actual conference (because most of the advocates who were there didn’t have registration badges to get in), and very separate from where the HCPs were talking about … well … talking about us.
Twelve months later EASD moved to Munich. This time, Bastian had managed to negotiate with the event organisers for a room at the conference centre. Most of the advocates who were there for other satellite events had secured registrations badges, and could easily access all spaces. Now, instead of needing to schlep across town to meet, we had a dedicated space for a couple of hours. It also means that HCPs could pop into the event in between sessions. And a few did!
This has been the model for #docday° at EASD and, more recently, ATTD as well. The meetups were held at the conference centre and each time the number of HCPs would grow. It worked! Until, of course COVID threw a spanner in all the diabetes conference works. And so, we moved online to virtual gatherings which turned out to be quite amazing as it opened up the floor to a lot of advocates who ordinarily might not be able to access the meetings in Europe.
And that brings us to this year. The first large international diabetes conference was back on – after a couple of reschedules and location changes. And with it would, of course, be the global #dedoc° community, but this time, rather than a satellite or adjacent session, it would be part of the scientific program. There on the website was the first ever #dedoc° symposium. This was (is!) HUGE! It marks a real change in how and where people with diabetes, our stories and our position is considered at what has in the past been the domain of health professionals and researchers.
When you live by the motto ‘Nothing about us without us’ this is a very comfortable place to be. Bastian and the #dedoc° team and supporters had moved the needle, and shown that people with diabetes can be incorporated into these conferences with ease. The program for the session was determined by what have been key discussions in the diabetes community for some time: access, stigma and DIY technologies. And guess what? Those very topics were also mentioned by HCPs in other sessions.
There have been well over a dozen #docday° events now. There has been conversation after conversation after conversation about how to better include people with diabetes in these sorts of events in a meaningful way. There has been community working together to make it happen. And here we are.
For the record, the room was full to overflowing. And the vast majority of the people there were not people with diabetes. Healthcare professionals and researchers made the conscious decision to walk into Hall 118 at 3pm on Wednesday 27 April to hear from the diabetes community; to learn from the diabetes community.
If you missed it, here it is! The other amazing thing about this Symposium was that, unlike all other sessions, it wasn’t only open to people who had registered for ATTD. It was live streamed across #dedoc° socials and is available now for anyone to watch on demand. So, watch now! It was such an honour to be asked to moderate this session and to be able to present the three incredibly speakers from the diabetes community. Right where they – where we – belong.
DISCLOSURE
My flights and accommodation have been covered by #dedoc°, where I have been an advisor for a number of years, and am now working with them as Head of Advocacy.
Thanks to ATTD for providing me with a press pass to attend the conference.
I frequently say that these days, I do hardly anything when it comes to diabetes. I credit the technology behind LOOP for making the last four-and-a-half years of diabetes a lot less labour intensive and emotionally draining than the nineteen-and-a-half years that came before.
It’s true. Justin Walker’s assessment that his DIYAPS has given him back an hour a day rings true. (He said that in a presentation at Diabetes Mine’s DData back in 2018.)
The risk that comes with speaking about the benefits of amazing newer tech or drugs is that we, unintentionally, start to minimise what we still must do. I think in our eagerness to talk about how much better things are – and they often are markedly better – we lose the thread of the work we still put in. But our personal stories are just that, and we should speak about our experiences and the direct effect tech has in a way that feels authentic and true to us.
And that’s why accuracy in reporting beyond those personal accounts is important. Critical even.
Yesterday, the inimitable Jacq Allen (if you are not following her on Twitter, please start now), tweeted a fabulous thread about the importance of getting terminology right when reporting diabetes tech.
She was referring to a tweet sharing a BBC news article which repeatedly labelled a hybrid-closed loop system as an ‘artificial pancreas’. Jacq eloquently pointed out that the label was incorrect, and that even with this technology, the wearer still is required to put in a significant amount of work. She said: ‘…Calling it an ‘artificial pancreas’ makes it sound like a cure, like a plug and play, it makes diabetes sound easy, and while this makes diabetes less dangerous for me, adopting a term that makes it sound like it can magically emulate a WHOLE ORGAN is disingenuous and minimises the amount of time and effort it still takes to keep yourself well and safe.’
Jacq’s right. And after reading her thread, I started to think about the time and effort I had dedicated to diabetes over the previous week.
This weekend, I spent time dealing with all the different components of Loop. For some reason my Dexcom was being a shit and all of a sudden decided to throw out the ‘signal loss’ alert. After doing all the trouble shooting things, I ended up deleting the app and reinstalling it, which necessitated having to pair the transmitter with the app. This happened twice. I also decided it would be a good time to recharge my Fenix (Dexcom G5 transmitter) and reset it.
I ran out of insulin while at a family lunch, necessitating some pretty nifty calculations about how much IOB was floating around, and what that meant in terms of what I could eat from the table laden with an incredible spread of Italian food.
Saturday night, Aaron surprised me with tickets to the Melbourne Theatre Company and in our usual shambolic fashion, we were running late, which meant a little jog (don’t laugh) from the car park to the theatre. I was in high-heeled boots and a skirt that scraped the ground. The degree of difficulty WITHOUT diabetes was high. As I less-than-daintily plunked myself in my seat, I looked at my CGM trace, trying to decide if the 5.5mmol/l with a straight arrow was perfect or perilous, and did a bit of advanced calculus to work out if the audience would be serenaded by the Dexcom alarm at some point in during the 90-minute performance. I snuck in a couple of fruit pastilles under my mask, and surreptitiously glanced down at my watch every ten minutes or so to see if further action was needed. It was. Because that straight arrow turned into double arrows up towards the end of the play.
I spent two hours out of my day off last week for a HCP appointment, as well as several hours dispersed throughout the week trying to work out if there would be any way at all that I might be able to access a fourth COVID boosted prior to flying to Barcelona at the end of the month.
And that doesn’t include the time spent on daily calibrations required because I’m still using up G5 sensors, the pump lines that need replacing every three days (and checked on other days), reservoirs that need refilling (when I remember…) and batteries that need replacing. Or the time set allocated to daily games of ‘Where is my Orange Link’. And the brain power needed to guess calculate carbs in whatever I am eating. (And you bet there are clever people who no longer need to ‘announce’ carbs on the systems they’re using, but the other tasks still have to happen.) It doesn’t include the time out I had to take for a couple of so-called mild hypos that still necessitated time and effort to manage.
Short of a cure, the holy grail for me in diabetes is each and every incremental step we take that means diabetes intrudes less in my life. I will acknowledge with gratitude and amazement and relief at how much less disturbance and interruption there is today, thanks to LOOP, but it would be misleading for me to say that diabetes doesn’t still interfere and take time.
Plus, I’ve not even started to mention the emotional labour involved in living with diabetes. It is constant, it is more intense some days. There are moments of deep and dark despair that terrify me. It is exhausting, and no amount of tech has eliminated it for me.
The risk we face when there is exaggeration about the functionality and cleverness of diabetes tech is that those not directly affected by diabetes start to think that it’s easy. In the same way that insulin is not a cure, diabetes tech is not a panacea. Setting aside the critical issue about access, availability, and affordability, even those of us who are privileged to be able to use what we need, still probably find a significant burden placed on us by diabetes.
This isn’t new. Back in 2015 when Australia was the launch market for Medtronic’s 640G, it was touted as an artificial pancreas, and I wrote about how troubling it was. I stand by what I wrote then:
‘Whilst this technology is a step in the right direction, it is not an artificial pancreas. It is not the holy grail.
Diabetes still needs attention, still needs research, still needs funding, still needs donations. We are not there yet, and any report that even suggests that is, I believe, detrimental to continued efforts looking to further improve diabetes management.
All of us who are communicating in any way about diabetes have a responsibility to be truthful, honest and, as much as possible, devoid of sensationalism.’
It’s why I frequently plead that anyone who refers to CGM or Flash GM as ‘non-invasive’ stops and stops now. There is nothing non-invasive about a sensor being permanently under my skin and being placed there by a large introducer needle. Tech advances may mean we don’t see those needles anymore, and we may even feel them less, but they are still there!
We still need further advancements. We still need research dollars. We still need politicians to fight for policy reform to ensure access is easy and fast and broad. We still need healthcare professionals to understand the failings of technology, so they don’t think that we are failing when we don’t reach arbitrary targets.
We still need the public to understand how serious diabetes is and that even with the cool tech, we need warm hands to help us through. We still need the media to report accurately. And we still need whoever is writing media releases to be honest in their assessments of just what it is they are writing about.
Keep it real. That’s all I am asking. Because overstating diabetes technology understates the efforts of people with diabetes. And that is never, ever a good thing.
Diabetogenic 