People with type 2 diabetes’ experiences of emotional support in Australian general practice: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes distress, experienced by up to 40% of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), is the negative emotional response to the burden of living with and managing diabetes. It is associated with suboptimal glycaemia and diabetes self-management. Research indicates that people with diabetes do not recall being asked about emotional distress by healthcare professionals. AIM: To explore the experiences, needs, and expectations of people with T2D regarding emotional support received in Australian general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: Exploratory qualitative study in Victoria, Australia. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to explore emotional health and support received in general practice in 12 adults with T2D who primarily attend general practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: The following three major themes were identified: (1) Beneath the surface of diabetes care; (2) Importance of GP-patient relationship; and (3) Communication counts. Participants experienced diabetes care as focused primarily on medical management rather than the emotional aspects of living with T2D. While people's experiences of diabetes care in general practice primarily focused on physical health, the GP care beyond the presenting complaint has an essential role in identifying emotional issues and enabling support. Emotional issues were more likely to be discussed and acknowledged by the GP where there was a long-standing relationship between GP and patient. CONCLUSION: Pre-existing positive GP-patient relationships and supportive communication enable people with 2TD to raise emotional issues as part of diabetes care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".