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.

Associations between weight self-stigma and healthy diet and physical activity among adults with type 2 diabetes: Cross-sectional results from the second Diabetes MILES - Australia (MILES-2) study.

AIMS: To examine associations between weight self-stigma and healthy diet or physical activity, and potential moderating effects of self-esteem, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes social support, among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Diabetes MILES-2 data were used, an Australian cross-sectional online survey. Participants with type 2 diabetes who considered themselves overweight, and reported concern about weight management (N = 726; 48% insulin-treated), completed the Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire (WSSQ; total score and subscales: self-devaluation, fear of enacted stigma), measures of diabetes self-care (diet, exercise), and hypothesised psychosocial moderators (self-esteem, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes social support). Adjusted linear regression tested associations and interaction effects, separately by insulin treatment status. RESULTS: Greater weight self-stigma (WSSQ total) was associated with less optimal dietary self-care (both groups: ß = -0.3), and with a lower level of exercise (non-insulin only: ß = -0.2; all p < 0.001). All hypothesised moderators were negatively associated with weight self-stigma (range r = -0.2 to r = -0.5). Positive associations were identified between the hypothesised moderators and self-care behaviours (strongest between diet and diabetes self-efficacy, r = > 0.5). No significant interaction effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel evidence of negative associations between weight self-stigma and self-care behaviours among adults with type 2 diabetes. Weight self-stigma is a demonstrated barrier to self-care behaviours in type 2 diabetes cohorts. Acknowledgement and strategies to address weight self-stigma are needed in clinical care and health programmes.

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.

"I feel like I'm being talked to like an equal": Diabetes language matters to adults with diabetes, a mixed-methods study.

AIM: To explore reactions to and preferences for words/phrases used in communications about diabetes among adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes. METHODS: Eligible adults (aged 18+ years) living with diabetes, or parenting a child with diabetes, were recruited via social media to complete an online cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey. Study-specific items were used to examine 22 commonly used diabetes words/phrases in terms of participants' cognitive perceptions ('helpful', 'respectful', 'accurate', 'harmful', 'judgmental' and 'inaccurate') and emotional reactions ('optimistic', 'motivated', 'supported', 'understood', 'offended', 'blamed', 'distressed' and 'angry'). Open-ended questions invited further feedback on (non-)preferred language and its impact(s). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants (N = 865) included adults with diabetes (type 1: n = 519; type 2: n = 180, other types: n = 48) and parents of children with diabetes (n = 118). Words/phrases most commonly associated with negative perceptions/emotional responses were 'non-compliant' (60% judgmental; 47% felt blamed) and '…good/bad' (54% judgmental; 43% blamed). Positive perceptions were reported for 'managing diabetes' (73% helpful, 47% felt understood), 'person with diabetes' (72% respectful; 49% understood), '…within/outside target range' (60% helpful, 44% understood), and 'condition' (58% respectful; 43% understood). Participants' qualitative responses illuminated perceptions, experiences and impacts across five themes: (1) accuracy and simplicity; (2) identity; (3) blame, judgement and stigma; (4) respect and trust and; (5) support, hope and feeling understood. Themes were consistent across diabetes types. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide novel evidence into (non-)preferred, and potential (negative and positive) impacts of, commonly used diabetes words/phrases, supporting the international #LanguageMatters movement.

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.

Perceptions of adults with type 1 diabetes toward diabetes-specific quality of life measures: a survey-based qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaires are commonly used to assess the impact of diabetes and its management on an individual's quality of life. While several valid and reliable measures of diabetes-specific QoL exist, there is no consensus on which to use and in what setting. Furthermore, there is limited evidence of their acceptability to people with diabetes. Our aim was to explore perceptions of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) toward five diabetes-specific QoL measures. METHODS: Adults (aged 18 + years) with T1D living in Australia or the United Kingdom (UK) were eligible to take part in 'YourSAY: QoL', an online cross-sectional survey. Recruitment involved study promotion on diabetes-related websites and social media, as well as direct invitation of people with T1D via a hospital client list (UK only). In random order, participants completed five diabetes-specific QoL measures: Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL-19); Diabetes Care Profile: Social and Personal Factors subscale (DCP); DAWN Impact of Diabetes Profile (DIDP); Diabetes-Specific Quality of Life Scale: Burden Subscale (DSQoLS); Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire (Diabetes QOL-Q). They were invited to provide feedback on each questionnaire in the form of a brief free-text response. Responses were analysed using inductive, thematic template analysis. RESULTS: Of the N = 1,946 adults with T1D who completed the survey, 20% (UK: n = 216, Australia: n = 168) provided qualitative responses about ≥ 1 measure. All measures received both positive and negative feedback, across four themes: (1) clarity and ease of completion, e.g., difficulty isolating impact of diabetes, dislike of hypothetical questions, and preference for 'not applicable' response options; (2) relevance and comprehensiveness, e.g., inclusion of a wide range of aspects of life to improve personal relevance; (3) length and repetition, e.g., length to be balanced against respondent burden; (4) framing and tone, e.g., preference for respectful language and avoidance of extremes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest opportunities to improve the relevance and acceptability of existing diabetes-specific QoL measures, and offer considerations for developing new measures, which need to be better informed by the preferences of people living with diabetes.

'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.

Supporting healthcare professionals to reduce weight stigma.

BACKGROUND: Reducing weight stigma in healthcare is critical to supporting and improving the health of people living with overweight or obesity and decreasing the risk of adverse patient outcomes. We were invited as stigma researchers to participate in an online workshop alongside community members, healthcare professionals and policymakers to codesign guidance for reducing weight stigma in healthcare. This workshop prompted us to reflect on why and how weight stigma should be addressed in healthcare, and to provide recommendations for healthcare professionals and policymakers to reduce weight stigma in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents our reflections and recommendations for addressing weight stigma in healthcare following the codesign workshop. DISCUSSION: Recommendations include targeting individual healthcare professionals and involving clear, practical guidelines and training that leverage the notions of 'do no harm', improving practice and recognising biases. Importantly, such strategies must be couched in broader structural approaches to weight stigma reduction.

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.