Disclosure of New Type 2 Diabetes Diagnoses to Younger Adults: a Qualitative Study

Anjali Gopalan, Maruta A Blatchins, Andrea Altschuler, Pranita Mishra, Issa Fakhouri, Richard W Grant, Anjali Gopalan, Maruta A Blatchins, Andrea Altschuler, Pranita Mishra, Issa Fakhouri, Richard W Grant

Abstract

Background: Adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at a younger age are at increased risk for poor outcomes. Yet, little is known about the early experiences of these individuals, starting with communication of the diagnosis. Addressing this knowledge gap is important as this initial interaction may shape subsequent disease-related perceptions and self-management.

Objective: We examined diagnosis disclosure experiences and initial reactions among younger adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Participants: Purposive sample of adult members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated healthcare delivery system, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before age 45 years.

Approach: We conducted six focus groups between November 2017 and May 2018. Transcribed audio recordings were coded by two coders using thematic analysis.

Key results: Participants (n = 41) were 38.4 (± 5.8) years of age; 10 self-identified as Latinx, 12 as Black, 12 as White, and 7 as multiple or other races. We identified variation in diagnosis disclosure experiences, centered on four key domains: (1) participants' sense of preparedness for diagnosis (ranging from expectant to surprised); (2) disclosure setting (including in-person, via phone, via secure message, or via review of results online); (3) perceived provider tone (from nonchalant, to overly fear-centered, to supportive); and (4) participants' emotional reactions to receiving the diagnosis (including acceptance, denial, guilt, and/or fear, rooted in personal and family experience).

Conclusions: For younger adults, the experience of receiving a diabetes diagnosis varies greatly. Given the long-term consequences of inadequately managed diabetes and the need for early disease control, effective initial disclosure represents an opportunity to optimize initial care. Our results suggest several opportunities to improve the type 2 diabetes disclosure experience: (1) providing pre-test counseling, (2) identifying patient-preferred settings for receiving the news, and (3) developing initial care strategies that acknowledge and address the emotional distress triggered by this life-altering, chronic disease diagnosis.

Keywords: diagnosis; patient-provider communication; type 2 diabetes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2020.
    1. Hillier TA, Pedula KL. Complications in young adults with early-onset type 2 diabetes: losing the relative protection of youth. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):2999–3005.
    1. Chan JC, Lau ES, Luk AO, et al. Premature mortality and comorbidities in young-onset diabetes: a 7-year prospective analysis. Am J Med. 2014;127(7):616–624.
    1. Song SH, Gray TA. Early-onset type 2 diabetes: high risk for premature diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(2):207–211.
    1. Bo A, Thomsen RW, Nielsen JS, et al. Early-onset type 2 diabetes: Age gradient in clinical and behavioural risk factors in 5115 persons with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes-Results from the DD2 study. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2018;34(3). 10.1002/dmrr.2968.
    1. Benhalima K, Wilmot E, Khunti K, Gray LJ, Lawrence I, Davies M. Type 2 diabetes in younger adults: clinical characteristics, diabetes-related complications and management of risk factors. Prim Care Diabetes. 2011;5(1):57–62.
    1. Hillier TA, Pedula KL. Characteristics of an adult population with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the relation of obesity and age of onset. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(9):1522–1527.
    1. Berkowitz SA, Meigs JB, Wexler DJ. Age at type 2 diabetes onset and glycaemic control: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2010. Diabetologia. 2013;56(12):2593–2600.
    1. Gopalan A, Mishra P, Alexeeff SE, et al. Initial glycemic control and care among younger adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(5):975-981. 10.2337/dc19-1380.
    1. Hessler DM, Fisher L, Mullan JT, Glasgow RE, Masharani U. Patient age: a neglected factor when considering disease management in adults with type 2 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):154–159.
    1. Browne JL, Nefs G, Pouwer F, Speight J. Depression, anxiety and self-care behaviours of young adults with Type 2 diabetes: results from the International Diabetes Management and Impact for Long-term Empowerment and Success (MILES) Study. Diabet Med. 2015;32(1):133–140.
    1. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–1589.
    1. Laiteerapong N, Ham SA, Gao Y, et al. The Legacy Effect in Type 2 Diabetes: Impact of Early Glycemic Control on Future Complications (The Diabetes & Aging Study) Diabetes Care. 2019;42(3):416–426.
    1. Strelitz J, Ahern AL, Long GH, et al. Moderate weight change following diabetes diagnosis and 10 year incidence of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Diabetologia. 2019;62(8):1391–1402.
    1. Polonsky WH, Capehorn M, Belton A, et al. Physician-patient communication at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and its links to patient outcomes: New results from the global IntroDia(R) study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;127:265–274.
    1. Lawson VL, Bundy C, Belcher J, Harvey JN. Changes in Coping Behavior and the Relationship to Personality, Health Threat Communication and Illness Perceptions from the Diagnosis of Diabetes: A 2-year Prospective Longitudinal Study. Health Psychol Res. 2013;1(2):e20.
    1. Parry O, Peel E, Douglas M, Lawton J. Patients in waiting: a qualitative study of type 2 diabetes patients’ perceptions of diagnosis. Fam Pract. 2004;21(2):131–136.
    1. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, Lawton J. Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: a qualitative analysis of patients’ emotional reactions and views about information provision. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(3):269–275.
    1. Capehorn M, Polonsky WH, Edelman S, et al. Challenges faced by physicians when discussing the Type 2 diabetes diagnosis with patients: insights from a cross-national study (IntroDia((R)) ) Diabet Med. 2017;34(8):1100–1107.
    1. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55(RR-14):1–17.
    1. Mack JW, Fasciano KM, Block SD. Communication About Prognosis With Adolescent and Young Adult Patients With Cancer: Information Needs, Prognostic Awareness, and Outcomes of Disclosure. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(18):1861–1867.
    1. Coenen M, Stamm TA, Stucki G, Cieza A. Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(2):359–370.
    1. Guest G, Namey E, Taylor J, Eley N, McKenna K. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(6):693–708.
    1. Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K. How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field Methods. 2017;29(1):3–22.
    1. Schroeder EB, Donahoo WT, Goodrich GK, Raebel MA. Validation of an algorithm for identifying type 1 diabetes in adults based on electronic health record data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018;27(10):1053-1059. 10.1002/pds.4377.
    1. Klompas M, Eggleston E, McVetta J, Lazarus R, Li L, Platt R. Automated detection and classification of type 1 versus type 2 diabetes using electronic health record data. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):914–921.
    1. Leask J, Hawe P, Chapman S. Focus group composition: a comparison between natural and constructed groups. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25(2):152–154.
    1. Greenwood N, Ellmers T, Holley J. The influence of ethnic group composition on focus group discussions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:107.
    1. Lieblich A, Tuval-Mashiach R, Zilber T. Narrative research : reading, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1998.
    1. Clandinin DJ, Connelly FM. Narrative inquiry : experience and story in qualitative research. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2000.
    1. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189–1208.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
    1. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–311.
    1. VandeKieft GK. Breaking bad news. Am Fam Physician. 2001;64(12):1975–1978.
    1. von Blanckenburg P, Hofmann M, Rief W, Seifart U, Seifart C. Assessing patients preferences for breaking Bad News according to the SPIKES-Protocol: the MABBAN scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(8):1623-1629. 10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.036.
    1. Rabow MW, McPhee SJ. Beyond breaking bad news: how to help patients who suffer. West J Med. 1999;171(4):260–263.
    1. Kvedar J, Coye MJ, Everett W. Connected health: a review of technologies and strategies to improve patient care with telemedicine and telehealth. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33(2):194–199.
    1. Ray KN, Chari AV, Engberg J, Bertolet M, Mehrotra A. Disparities in Time Spent Seeking Medical Care in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1983–1986.
    1. Reed ME, Huang J, Parikh R, et al. Patient-Provider Video Telemedicine Integrated With Clinical Care: Patient Experiences. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(3):222–224.
    1. McEwan LN, Herman WH. Diabetes in America. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD; 2017. Health care utilization and costs of diabetes.
    1. Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman RS, et al. Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol Bull. 2015;141(6):1178–1204.
    1. Higbee KL. Fifteen years of fear arousal: research on threat appeals: 1953-1968. Psychol Bull. 1969;72(6):426–444.
    1. Hendricks LE, Hendricks RT. Greatest fears of type 1 and type 2 patients about having diabetes: implications for diabetes educators. Diabetes Educ. 1998;24(2):168–173.
    1. Kuniss N, Freyer M, Muller N, Kielstein V, Muller UA. Expectations and fear of diabetes-related long-term complications in people with type 2 diabetes at primary care level. Acta Diabetol. 2019;56(1):33–38.
    1. Kok G, Peters G-JY, Kessels LTE, ten Hoor GA, Ruiter RAC. Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: the false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychol Rev. 2018;12(2):111–125.
    1. Ruiter RA, Kessels LT, Peters GJ, Kok G. Sixty years of fear appeal research: current state of the evidence. Int J Psychol. 2014;49(2):63–70.
    1. Manyiwa S, Brennan R. Fear appeals in anti-smoking advertising: How important is self-efficacy? J Mark Manag. 2012;28(11-12):1419–1437.
    1. CMS OMH and NORC. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Diabetes Prevalence, Self-Management, and Health Outcomes among Medicare Beneficiaries. . CMS OMH Data Highlight No. 6 Web site. . Published 2017. Accessed September 22, 2020.
    1. Pandit AU, Bailey SC, Curtis LM, et al. Disease-related distress, self-care and clinical outcomes among low-income patients with diabetes. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(6):557–564.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner