The experiences of individuals who have had gestational diabetes: A qualitative exploration.

AIM: To qualitatively explore the experiences of individuals with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) in Australia, and to recognise opportunities for leveraging digital health to enhance the support of GDM management. METHOD: A cross sectional online survey assessed the experiences of individuals with GDM, the healthcare system and their digital health usage. Respondents (recruited via a national diabetes registry or social media) were adults receiving GDM care within Australia in the last 5 years, who responded to any of three open-ended questions (n = 815) exploring positive, negative and other GDM experiences. Thematic analysis was utilised, and themes were mapped to the socio-ecological systems framework. RESULTS: At a system level, themes related to (1) accessibility of care including the value of digital health and the inflexible or inconsistent perception of the (2) implementation of guidelines. At an interpersonal level, themes covered the need for adequate (3) health information provision, and (4) supportive care, as well as highlighting (5) experiences of stigma including a desire for greater awareness of GDM. Individual-level themes included: (6) differential barriers to accessing care; (7) negative emotional burden; (8) internalisation of stigma; (9) dietary freedom and social impact and (10) opportunity for change derived from having GDM. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest a demand for more supportive, person-centred GDM care, improved information provision and individualised implementation of clinical guidelines. Such mechanisms may support reduced barriers to accessing care or negative psychosocial impacts of GDM. Though not central to the identified experiences, digital health tools may help address the need for optimised GDM care.

Hypoglycaemia symptom frequency, severity, burden, and utility among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: Baseline and 24-week findings from the HypoCOMPaSS study.

AIMS: To determine the frequency, severity, burden, and utility of hypoglycaemia symptoms among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) at baseline and week 24 following the HypoCOMPaSS awareness restoration intervention. METHODS: Adults (N = 96) with T1D (duration: 29 ± 12 years; 64% women) and IAH completed the Hypoglycaemia Burden Questionnaire (HypoB-Q), assessing experience of 20 pre-specified hypoglycaemia symptoms, at baseline and week 24. RESULTS: At baseline, 93 (97%) participants experienced at least one symptom (mean ± SD 10.6 ± 4.6 symptoms). The proportion recognising each specific symptom ranged from 15% to 83%. At 24 weeks, symptom severity and burden appear reduced, and utility increased. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with T1D and IAH experience a range of hypoglycaemia symptoms. Perceptions of symptom burden or utility are malleable. Although larger scale studies are needed to confirm, these findings suggest that changing the salience of the symptomatic response may be more important in recovering protection from hypoglycaemia through regained awareness than intensifying symptom frequency or severity.

'Is Insulin Right for Me?': Web-based intervention to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes-A randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: To test 'Is Insulin Right for Me?', a theory-informed, self-directed, web-based intervention designed to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with type 2 diabetes. Further, to examine resource engagement and associations between minimum engagement and outcomes. METHODS: Double-blind, two-arm randomised controlled trial (1:1), comparing the intervention with freely available online information (control). Eligible participants were Australian adults with type 2 diabetes, taking oral diabetes medications, recruited primarily via national diabetes registry. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: prior use of injectable medicines; being 'very willing' to commence insulin. Data collections were completed online at baseline, 2-week and 6-month follow-up. PRIMARY OUTCOME: negative insulin treatment appraisal scale (ITAS) scores; secondary outcomes: positive ITAS scores and hypothetical willingness to start insulin. ANALYSES: intention-to-treat (ITT); per-protocol (PP) examination of outcomes by engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621000191897. RESULTS: No significant ITT between-arm (intervention: n = 233; control: n = 243) differences were observed in primary (2 weeks: Mdiff [95% CI]: -1.0 [-2.9 to 0.9]; 6 months: -0.01 [-1.9 to 1.9]), or secondary outcomes at either follow-up. There was evidence of lower Negative ITAS scores at 2-week, but not 6-month, follow-up among those with minimum intervention engagement (achieved by 44%) compared to no engagement (-2.7 [-5.1 to -0.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to existing information, 'Is insulin right for me?' did not improve outcomes at either timepoint. Small intervention engagement effects suggest it has potential. Further research is warranted to examine whether effectiveness would be greater in a clinical setting, following timely referral among those for whom insulin is clinically indicated.

'I need someone to believe in me and walk the journey with me': A qualitative analysis of preferred approaches to weight management discussions in clinical care among adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To explore the preferences of adults with type 2 diabetes regarding the approach to weight management discussions in clinical care. METHODS: Online survey of Australian adults with type 2 diabetes, recruited via a national diabetes registry. Three open-ended questions explored participants' experiences and ideal approach to discussing weight management with health professionals. Data subjected to inductive thematic template analysis. RESULTS: Participants were 254 adults, 58% aged 60+ years, 52% women and 35% insulin-treated. Five themes were developed to categorise participants' preferences for, as well as differing experiences of, weight management discussions: (1) collaborative, person-centred care: working together to make decisions and achieve outcomes, taking personal context into consideration; (2) balanced communication: open, clear messages encouraging action, empathy and kindness; (3) quality advice: knowledgeable health professionals, providing specific details or instructions; (4) weight management intervention: suitable modalities to address weight management and (5) system-wide support: referral and access to appropriate multi-disciplinary care. CONCLUSIONS: Participants expressed preferences for discussing weight management in collaborative, person-centred consultations, with quality advice and personalised interventions across the health system, delivered with empathy. By adopting these recommendations, health professionals may build constructive partnerships with adults with type 2 diabetes and foster weight management.

'Is insulin right for me?': Feasibility of a pilot randomised controlled trial and acceptability of a web-based intervention to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Acceptable and accessible interventions are needed to address 'psychological insulin resistance', which is a common barrier to insulin uptake among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Our aim was to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design and acceptability of a theoretically grounded, psycho-educational, web-based resource to reduce negative insulin appraisals among adults with T2D. METHODS: A double-blinded, parallel group, two-arm pilot RCT (1:1), comparing intervention with active control (existing online information about insulin). Eligible participants were Australian adults with T2D, taking oral diabetes medications. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: prior use of injectable medicines; being 'very willing' to commence insulin. Primary outcomes: study feasibility (recruitment ease, protocol fulfilment, attrition, data completeness); secondary outcomes: intervention acceptability (intervention engagement, user feedback) and likely efficacy (negative Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale [ITAS] scores at follow-up). Online surveys completed at baseline and 2 weeks. RESULTS: During 4-week recruitment, 76 people expressed interest: 51 eligible and 35 enrolled (intervention = 17, control = 18; median[interquartile range] age = 62[53, 69] years; 17 women). Protocol fulfilment achieved by 26 (74%) participants (n = 13 per arm), with low participant attrition (n = 6, 17%). Intervention acceptability was high (>80% endorsement, except format preference = 60%). ITAS negative scores differed between-groups at follow-up (M diff = -6.5, 95% confidence interval: -10.7 to -2.4), favouring the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This novel web-based resource ("Is insulin right for me?") is acceptable and associated with a likely reduction in negative insulin appraisals, relative to existing resources. This pilot shows the study design is feasible and supports conduct of a fully powered RCT.

'For me, it didn't seem as drastic a step as being controlled by insulin': A qualitative investigation of expectations and experiences of non-insulin injectable therapy among adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: This qualitative study aims to explore beliefs, attitudes and experiences of injectable glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) use and discontinuation, as well as attitudes to further injectable treatment intensification, among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Nineteen in-depth semi-structured interviews lasting (mean ± standard deviation) 45 ± 18 min were conducted, face-to-face (n = 14) or via telephone (n = 5). Transcripts were analysed using inductive template analyses. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults with T2D who had recently initiated (≤3 years) GLP-1RA treatment. RESULTS: Participants were aged 28-72 years, who predominantly lived in metropolitan areas (n = 15), and had an experience of daily (n = 11) and/or once-weekly (n = 13) GLP-1RA formulations. Six participants had discontinued treatment and seven had trialled two or more formulations. Expectations and experiences of GLP-1RA were related to the perceived: (1) symbolism and stigma of injectable diabetes treatment; (2) ease of injectable administration and device preferences; (3) treatment convenience and social impact; (4) treatment efficacy and benefits, and; (5) negative treatment side effects. Some participants reported increased receptiveness to insulin therapy following their GLP-1RA experience, others emphasised unique concerns about insulin beyond injectable administration. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a novel understanding of expectations and experience of non-insulin injectables among Australian adults with T2D. Our data suggest expectations may be informed by attitudes to insulin therapy, while perceived treatment benefits (e.g. weight-related benefits, administration frequency) may motivate uptake and ongoing use despite concerns. Experience of GLP-1RA injections may impact receptiveness to future insulin use.

Cost-effectiveness of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring in general practice among adults with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from the GP-OSMOTIC trial.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice compared with usual clinical care. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted as a component of the GP-OSMOTIC trial, a pragmatic multicentre 12-month randomised controlled trial enrolling 299 adults with type 2 diabetes in Victoria, Australia. The economic evaluation was conducted from an Australian healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and total healthcare costs were compared between the intervention and the usual care group within the trial period. The 'UKPDS Outcomes Model 2' was used to simulate post-trial lifetime costs, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: No significant difference in health-related quality of life and costs was found between the two groups within the trial period. Professional-mode flash glucose monitoring yielded greater QALYs (0.03 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.04]) and a higher cost (A$3807 [95% CI: 3604, 4007]) compared with usual clinical care using a lifetime horizon under the trial-based monitoring frequency, considered not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = A$120,228). The intervention becomes cost-effective if sensor price is reduced to lower than 50%, or monitoring frequency is decreased to once per year while maintaining the same treatment effect on HbA1c . CONCLUSIONS: Including professional-mode flash glucose monitoring every 3 months as part of a management plan for people with type 2 diabetes in general practice is not cost-effective, but could be if the sensor price or monitoring frequency can be reduced.

A comparison of the acceptability and psychometric properties of scales assessing the impact of type 1 diabetes on quality of life-Results of 'YourSAY: Quality of Life'.

AIMS: To compare the acceptability, reliability and validity of five contemporary diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) scales among adults with type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom and Australia. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes (UK = 1139, Australia = 439) completed a cross-sectional, online survey including ADDQoL-19, DCP, DIDP, DSQOLS and Diabetes QoL-Q, presented in randomised order. After completing each scale, participants rated it for clarity, relevance, ease of completion, length and comprehensiveness. We examined scale acceptability (scale completion and user ratings), response patterns, structure (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and validity (convergent, concurrent, divergent and known groups). To assess cross-country reproducibility, analyses conducted on the UK dataset were replicated in the Australian dataset. RESULTS: Findings were largely consistent between countries. All scales were acceptable to participants: ≥90% completing all items, and ≥80% positive user ratings, except for DSQOLS' length. Scale structure was not supported for the DCP. Overall, in terms of acceptability and psychometric evaluation, the DIDP was the strongest performing scale while the ADDQoL-19 and Diabetes QoL-Q scales also performed well. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the recently developed brief (7 items), neutrally worded DIDP scale is acceptable to adults with type 1 diabetes and has the strongest psychometric performance. However, questionnaire selection should always be considered in the context of the research aims, study design and population, as well as the wider published evidence regarding both the development and responsiveness of the scales.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown restrictions on psychosocial and behavioural outcomes among Australian adults with type 2 diabetes: Findings from the PREDICT cohort study.

AIM: To examine psychosocial and behavioural impacts of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and lockdown restrictions among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the PRogrEssion of DIabetic ComplicaTions (PREDICT) cohort study in Melbourne, Australia (n = 489 with a baseline assessment pre-2020) were invited to complete a phone/online follow-up assessment in mid-2020 (i.e., amidst COVID-19 lockdown restrictions). Repeated assessments that were compared with pre-COVID-19 baseline levels included anxiety symptoms (7-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7]), depressive symptoms (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-8]), diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes scale [PAID]), physical activity/sedentary behaviour, alcohol consumption and diabetes self-management behaviours. Additional once-off measures at follow-up included COVID-19-specific worry, quality of life (QoL), and healthcare appointment changes (telehealth engagement and appointment cancellations/avoidance). RESULTS: Among 470 respondents (96%; aged 66 ± 9 years, 69% men), at least 'moderate' worry about COVID-19 infection was reported by 31%, and 29%-73% reported negative impacts on QoL dimensions (greatest for: leisure activities, feelings about the future, emotional well-being). Younger participants reported more negative impacts (p < 0.05). Overall, anxiety/depressive symptoms were similar at follow-up compared with pre-COVID-19, but diabetes distress reduced (p < 0.001). Worse trajectories of anxiety/depressive symptoms were observed among those who reported COVID-19-specific worry or negative QoL impacts (p < 0.05). Physical activity trended lower (~10%), but sitting time, alcohol consumption and glucose-monitoring frequency remained unchanged. 73% of participants used telehealth, but 43% cancelled a healthcare appointment and 39% avoided new appointments despite perceived need. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 lockdown restrictions negatively impacted QoL, some behavioural risk factors and healthcare utilisation in adults with type 2 diabetes. However, generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms remained relatively stable.

Further investigation of the psychometric properties of the Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale among insulin-using and non-insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes: results from Diabetes MILES-Australia.

BACKGROUND: Negative attitudes towards insulin are commonly reported by people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and can act as a barrier to timely insulin initiation. The Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS) is a widely used 20-item measure of attitudes towards insulin. While designed for completion by both insulin using and non-insulin using adults with T2DM, its psychometric properties have not been investigated separately for these groups. Furthermore, the total score is routinely reported in preference to the published two-factor structure (negative/positive appraisals). Further psychometric validation of the ITAS is required to examine its properties. METHODS: The ITAS was completed by a subgroup of 748 Diabetes MILES-Australia study participants with T2DM, who were either insulin using (n = 249; 45% women; mean age = 58 ± 9 years; mean diabetes duration = 13, SD = 8 years) or non-insulin using (n = 499; 47% women; mean age 57 ± 9 years; mean diabetes duration 7 ± 6 years). We replicated the psychometric analyses reported in the ITAS development paper. In addition, we explored factor structure and investigated internal consistency separately for the insulin using and non-insulin using samples. RESULTS: Factor analyses supported a two-factor structure with good internal consistency (negative subscale α = .90; positive subscale α = .69). Scale performance differed slightly in the insulin using and non-insulin using samples, with some items loading inconsistently between groups. A one-factor solution was not supported in either sample, with the positive items and some negative items failing to load adequately. Consistent with prior research, negative appraisals were significantly more common among non-insulin using participants compared to those using insulin (d = 1.04), while the positive subscale score did not discriminate between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The data supported a two factor structure and the positive subscale did not discriminate between insulin using and non-insulin using participants. As such, we recommend use of the negative subscale score in preference to the ITAS total score, and suggest close attention is paid to the relevance of the positive items in the given population.

Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the health and quality-of-life research priorities of Australians with diabetes or family members. METHODS: Through an iterative, three-step, online survey process we (1) qualitatively generated research topics (long list) in response to one question "What research is needed to support people with diabetes to live a better life?"; (2) determined the most important research questions (short list); and (3) ranked research questions in order of importance (priorities). We aimed to recruit N = 800 participants, with approximate equal representation of diabetes type and family members. RESULTS: Participants (N = 661) were adults (aged 18+ years) in Australia with a self-reporting diagnosis of diabetes (type 1, n = 302; type 2, n = 204; prior/current gestational, n = 58; less common types, n = 22, or a family member, n = 75). Retention rates for Surveys 2 and 3 were 47% (n = 295) and 50% (n = 316), respectively. From 1549 open-text responses, 25 topics and 125 research questions were identified thematically. Research priorities differed by cohort, resulting in specific lists developed and ranked by each cohort. The top-ranked research question for the type 1 diabetes cohort was "How can diabetes technology be improved …?" and for the type 2 diabetes cohort: "How can insulin resistance be reversed …?". One question was common to the final lists of all cohorts: "What are the causes or triggers of diabetes?" Within cohorts, the top priorities were perceived as being of similar importance. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities differ substantially by diabetes type and for family members. These findings should inform funding bodies and researchers, to align future research and its communication with community needs.

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.

Use and Preferences of Health Apps among Women and Healthcare Professionals Regarding GDM Postpartum Care Related to Diet, Physical Activity, and Weight Management: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is a common medical complication of pregnancy, which is associated with increased risk of future diabetes. mHealth (mobile health, in this paper applications abbreviated to apps) can facilitate health modifications to decrease future risks. This study aims to understand mHealth app use and preferences among women with past GDM and healthcare professionals (HCP) in Australia. An explorative cross-sectional online survey was disseminated via social media, a national diabetes registry, and professional networks. Descriptive analyses were conducted on valid responses (women with prior GDM: n = 1475; HCP: n = 75). One third (33%) of women with prior GDM have used health apps, and a further 80% of non-app users were open to using a health app if recommended by their HCP. Over half (53%) of HCPs supported health information delivery via mHealth, although only 14% had recommended a health app to women post-GDM, and lack of knowledge about mHealth apps was common. Health app users reported that they preferred tracking features, while non-users desired credible health and dietary information and plans. Expanding mHealth app use could facilitate healthy behaviours, but endorsement by HCPs is important to women and is still currently lacking.

Relationships between personality, emotional well-being, self-efficacy and weight management among adults with type 2 diabetes: Results from a cross-sectional survey.

The objective of this study was to examine the associations between personality, general and diabetes-specific well-being and self-efficacy, and weight management indicators, among adults with type 2 diabetes. In addition, to examine whether personality provides incremental explanation of variance in weight management indicators. Australian adults with type 2 diabetes (N = 270; 56% women; age: 61±12 years) were recruited via the national diabetes registry. An online survey included measures of: personality (HEXACO-PI-R), weight management indicators (physical activity, healthy diet, body mass index [BMI]), general well-being (WHO-5), general self-efficacy (GSE), diabetes distress (DDS) and diabetes self-efficacy (DMSES). Analyses included bivariate correlations and linear regression, adjusted for demographic, clinical, and psychological variables. All six personality domains showed significant correlation with at least one weight management indicator: physical activity with extraversion (r = .28), conscientiousness (r = .18) and openness (r = .19); healthy diet with honesty-humility (r = .19), extraversion (r = .24), and agreeableness (r = .14); and BMI with emotionality (r = .20) and extraversion (r = -.20). The strongest associations with general and diabetes-specific well-being and self-efficacy were apparent for extraversion, emotionality and conscientiousness (range: r = -.47-.66). Beyond covariates, personality domains explained additional variance for physical activity (Adjusted R2 = .31, R2 difference = .03, p = .03; openness: ß = .16, p = .02, emotionality: ß = .15, p = .04) and healthy diet (Adjusted R2 = .19, R2 difference = .03, p = .02; honesty-humility: ß = .20, p = .002, extraversion: ß = .19, p = .04) but not BMI. This study shows that personality is associated with weight management indicators and psychological factors among adults with type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed, including objective measurement of weight management indictors, to examine how personality influences the experience of type 2 diabetes.

The impact of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is considered of little clinical benefit for adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, but no comprehensive review of a structured approach to SMBG has been published to date. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of sSMBG on HbA1c, treatment modifications, behavioral and psychosocial outcomes, and; examine the moderating effects of sSMBG protocol characteristics on HbA1c. Data sources: Four databases searched (November 2020; updated: February 2022). Study selection: Inclusion criteria: non-randomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies; reporting effect of sSMBG on stated outcomes; among adults (≥18 years) with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Studies excluded if involving children or people with insulin-treated or other forms of diabetes. Data extraction and analysis: Outcome data extracted, and risk of bias/quality assessed independently by two researchers. Meta-analysis was conducted for RCTs, and moderators explored (HbA1c only). Data synthesis: From 2,078 abstracts, k=23 studies were included (N=5,372). Risk of bias was evident and study quality was low. Outcomes assessed included: HbA1c (k=23), treatment modification (k=16), psychosocial/behavioral outcomes (k=12). Meta-analysis revealed a significant mean difference favoring sSMBG in HbA1c (-0·29%, 95% CI: -0·46 to -0·11, k=13) and diabetes self-efficacy (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.33, k=2). Meta-analysis revealed no significant moderating effects by protocol characteristics. Limitations: Findings limited by heterogeneity in study designs, intervention characteristics, and psychosocial assessments. Conclusion: A small positive effect of sSMBG on HbA1c and diabetes self-efficacy was observed. Narrative synthesis of sSMBG intervention characteristics may guide future implementation. PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208857, identifier CRD42020208857.

Diabetes MILES--Australia (management and impact for long-term empowerment and success): methods and sample characteristics of a national survey of the psychological aspects of living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Australian adults.

BACKGROUND: Successful management of diabetes requires attention to the behavioural, psychological and social aspects of this progressive condition. The Diabetes MILES (Management and Impact for Long-term Empowerment and Success) Study is an international collaborative. Diabetes MILES--Australia, the first Diabetes MILES initiative to be undertaken, was a national survey of adults living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Australia. The aim of this study was to gather data that will provide insights into how Australians manage their diabetes, the support they receive and the impact of diabetes on their lives, as well as to use the data to validate new diabetes outcome measures. METHODS/DESIGN: The survey was designed to include a core set of self-report measures, as well as modules specific to diabetes type or management regimens. Other measures or items were included in only half of the surveys. Cognitive debriefing interviews with 20 participants ensured the survey content was relevant and easily understood. In July 2011, the survey was posted to 15,000 adults (aged 18-70 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes selected randomly from the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS) database. An online version of the survey was advertised nationally. A total of 3,338 eligible Australians took part; most (70.4%) completed the postal survey. Respondents of both diabetes types and genders, and of all ages, were adequately represented in both the postal and online survey sub-samples. More people with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes took part in Diabetes MILES--Australia (58.8% versus 41.2%). Most respondents spoke English as their main language, were married/in a de facto relationship, had at least a high school education, were occupied in paid work, had an annual household income > $AUS40,000, and lived in metropolitan areas. DISCUSSION: A potential limitation of the study is the under-representation of respondents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin). Diabetes MILES--Australia represents a major achievement in the study of diabetes in Australia, where for the first time, the focus is on psychosocial and behavioural aspects of this condition at a national level.

Personality and weight management in adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.

Aims: Managing weight in the context of type 2 diabetes presents unique hormonal, medicinal, behavioural and psychological challenges. The relationship between weight management and personality has previously been reviewed for general and cardiovascular disease populations but is less well understood in diabetes. This systematic review investigated the relationship between personality constructs and weight management outcomes and behaviours among adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus databases were searched to July 2021. Eligibility: empirical quantitative studies; English language; adults with type 2 diabetes; investigation of personality-weight management association. Search terms included variants of: diabetes, physical activity, diet, body mass index (BMI), adiposity, personality constructs and validated scales. A narrative synthesis, with quality assessment, was conducted. Results: Seventeen studies were identified: nine cross-sectional, six cohort and two randomised controlled trials (N=6,672 participants, range: 30-1,553). Three studies had a low risk of bias. Personality measurement varied. The Big Five and Type D personality constructs were the most common measures. Higher emotional instability (neuroticism, negative affect, anxiety, unmitigated communion and external locus of control) was negatively associated with healthy diet and physical activity, and positively associated with BMI. Conscientiousness had positive associations with healthy diet and physical activity and negative associations with BMI and anthropometric indices. Conclusions: Among adults with type 2 diabetes, evidence exists of a relationship between weight management and personality, specifically, negative emotionality and conscientiousness. Consideration of personality may be important for optimising weight management and further research is warranted. Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019111002.

Web-based intervention to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a two-armed randomised controlled trial of 'Is insulin right for me?'.

INTRODUCTION: Psychological barriers to insulin therapy are associated with the delay of clinically indicated treatment intensification for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet few evidence-based interventions exist to address these barriers. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the efficacy of a novel, theoretically grounded, psychoeducational, web-based resource designed to reduce psychological barriers to insulin among adults with non-insulin treated T2D: 'Is insulin right for me?'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Double-blind, parallel group RCT. A target sample of N=392 participants (n=196/arm) will be randomised (1:1) to 'Is insulin right for me?' (intervention) or widely available online resources (control). Eligible participants include adults (18-75 years), residing in Australia, currently taking oral hypoglycaemic agents to manage T2D. They will be primarily recruited via invitations and reminders from the national diabetes registry (from a purposefully selected sample of N≥12 000). EXCLUSION CRITERIA: experience of self-administered injectable; previously enrolled in pilot RCT; 'very willing' to start insulin as baseline. Outcomes will be assessed via online survey at 2 weeks and 6 months. Primary outcome between-group: difference in mean negative Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scores (ITAS negative) at 2-week and 6-month follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: between-group differences in mean positive insulin appraisals (ITAS positive) and percentage difference in intention to commence insulin at follow-up time points. All data analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020-073). Dissemination via peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000191897; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

'Is Insulin Right for Me?' Development of a theory-informed, web-based resource for reducing psychological barriers to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a theory and evidence-based web intervention to reduce psychological barriers towards insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Salient psychological barriers towards insulin were identified from the literature and classified using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Relevant TDF domains were mapped to evidence-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which informed the content for each barrier. Acceptability was explored using cognitive debriefing interviews (n=6 adults with T2D). RESULTS: 'Is Insulin Right for Me' addresses eight barriers, phrased as common questions: Does insulin mean my diabetes is more serious? Do insulin injections cause complications? Is it my fault I need to inject insulin? Will I gain weight? Will injecting hurt? What about hypos? Will injecting insulin be a burden? What will others think of me? BCTs, including persuasive communication and modelling/demonstration, were delivered using appropriate methods (eg, demonstration of the injection process). Participant suggestions for improvement included clear and direct messages, normalising insulin and avoiding confronting images. CONCLUSIONS: 'Is Insulin Right for Me' is the first theory and evidence-based, web intervention designed to reduce psychological barriers towards insulin therapy for adults with T2D. Evaluation is needed to determine its impact on negative appraisals and receptiveness towards insulin.