Diabetes misconceptions, seriousness, motivation, self-efficacy and stigma: A cross-sectional comparison of eight Australian diabetes communication campaign videos.

AIM: This study examines potential intended (attitudes, motivation and self-efficacy) and unintended (stigmatisation of diabetes) consequences of past Australian National Diabetes Week campaign videos. Further, outcomes are compared by the extent to which participants perceived their allocated video as stigmatising diabetes. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, ten-arm study, participants (adults with or without diabetes; 1:2 ratio) were randomly allocated to view one of eight archival diabetes campaign videos (intervention), or either an active or passive control group. Post-exposure, study-specific scales measured diabetes Misconceptions and Seriousness, General and Diabetes Risk-Reduction Motivation and Self-efficacy, and perceptions of video Stigmatisation of diabetes. Scores were compared by condition (intervention vs. control) and by campaign Stigma (highest vs. lowest tertile score), separately by cohort (with or without diabetes). RESULTS: The sample included n = 1023 without diabetes; and n = 510 with diabetes (79% type 2 diabetes). No significant differences in outcomes were observed between conditions (intervention vs. control), with one exception: a modest effect on General Self-efficacy among those without diabetes only. Those perceiving high campaign Stigma (15%), relative to low Stigma (60%), reported significantly greater diabetes Misconceptions, lower perceived Seriousness and (among those without diabetes only) lower General Motivation but higher Diabetes Risk Reduction Motivation. CONCLUSION: Though limited to a single-exposure, we found little meaningful positive influence of past diabetes campaign videos on diabetes attitudes, behavioural intentions or self-efficacy. Further, campaign videos were perceived as stigmatising by a minority-a potential harmful impact. This novel study has implications for the design, implementation and evaluation of future diabetes campaigns.

Effect of a tailored leaflet to promote diabetic retinopathy screening among young adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young adults with type 2 diabetes (aged 18-39 years) are at risk of early onset and rapid progression of diabetic retinopathy, the leading cause of blindness and vision loss in working age adults. Early detection via retinal screening can prevent most vision loss, yet screening rates are consistently lower among this priority population than the general diabetes population. We aimed to test the effect of a tailored, evidence-based brief health behaviour change intervention (leaflet) on self-reported screening uptake, and previously identified social cognitive determinants of retinal screening. METHODS: A pragmatic, two-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted from September 2014 to April 2015. Participants were stratified by prior screening uptake (Yes/No) and randomly allocated to intervention (leaflet) or 'usual care' control (no leaflet). Primary outcome was self-reported screening uptake four weeks post-intervention for 'No' participants who had not previously screened for diabetic retinopathy. Secondary outcome variables were changes in knowledge, attitudes, normative beliefs, intention and behavioural skills for all participants, irrespective of prior screening behaviour. To assess intervention effects on secondary outcome variables, we conducted independent samples t-tests (two-tailed) on pre-post change scores. RESULTS: 129 young adults (26% no prior retinal screen) completed baseline; 101 completed post-intervention. Power to determine effect on the primary outcome was curtailed by low recruitment of individuals with no prior retinal screen and loss to follow-up. Attrition was associated significantly with country of birth, language spoken at home, and marital status. Significant intervention effect was observed for one secondary outcome variable: knowledge of diabetic retinopathy (p = .03) with moderate effect (partial eta squared η2 = .05); no adverse effects were reported. Control group participants received the leaflet at study completion. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that a well-designed eye health and retinal screening promotion leaflet can increase knowledge of diabetic retinopathy, an important screening predictor. The study highlights the challenges of conducting 'real-world' health behaviour change research with this priority population, providing insights for clinicians and researchers. Strategies to recruit, engage and retain hard-to-reach populations are discussed including nonconventional alternatives to randomised controlled trial designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12614001110673, UTN No.: U1111-1161-9803. Registered 20 October 2014 - retrospectively registered https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367127.

Weight stigma and diabetes stigma in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes: Associations with diabetes self-care behaviors and perceptions of health care.

AIMS: Diabetes stigma and weight stigma have been identified as important but neglected issues that warrant attention among people with type 2 diabetes. This study assessed associations of diabetes stigma and weight stigma with diabetes self-care behaviors and health care in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes (N = 1,227) completed self-report questionnaires to assess their experiences of weight stigma, diabetes stigma, diabetes self-management, diabetes-specific distress, healthcare utilization, perceptions of diabetes-specific health care. They also provided sociodemographic information. Linear regressions examined relationships among stigma and diabetes self-care and related health care, controlling for participants' age, education, income, gender, race/ethnicity, and body mass index. RESULTS: Internalized weight stigma and diabetes self-stigma were both significantly associated with higher diabetes-specific distress. Adults who expressed self-stigma for their diabetes reported less diabetes self-management and lower self-efficacy, and those who reported being judged about their weight by a doctor exhibited greater diabetes-specific distress. While a history of experienced weight stigma (in general) did not reduce frequency of seeking health care, lower quality interactions with health care professionals were reported by adults who expressed diabetes self-stigma and those who experienced weight stigma from a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Self-stigma for diabetes and body weight, as well as experiencing judgment about weight from doctors, may have negative implications for diabetes-specific self-care behaviors and perceived quality of health care. Efforts to promote wellbeing in individuals with type 2 diabetes need to consider reducing both diabetes and weight stigma and their potentially harmful consequences.