OBJECTIVETo identify the psychosocial experiences of diabetes, including negative accounts of diabetes and adaptive ways of coping from the perspective of the person with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSParticipants were 8,596 adults (1,368 with type 1 diabetes and 7,228 with type 2 diabetes) in the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study. Qualitative data were responses to open-ended survey questions about successes, challenges, and wishes for improvement in living with diabetes and about impactful experiences. Emergent coding developed with multinational collaborators identified thematic content about psychosocial aspects. The k measure of interrater reliability was 0.72. RESULTSAnalysis identified two negative psychosocial themes: 1) anxiety/fear, worry about hypoglycemia and complications of diabetes, depression, and negative moods/hopelessness and 2) discrimination at work and public misunderstanding about diabetes. Two psychosocial themes demonstrated adaptive ways of coping with diabetes: 1) having a positive outlook and sense of resilience in the midst of having diabetes and 2) receiving psychosocial support through caring and compassionate family, friends, health care professionals, and other people with diabetes. CONCLUSIONSThe personal accounts give insight into the psychosocial experiences and coping strategies of people with diabetes and can inform efforts to meet those needs and capitalize on strengths.

The views of diabetes care professionals are in transition from a conventional hierarchic approach to a PCC approach. Further adoption of this approach would be facilitated by additional psychosocial training and educational/psychological resources, increased teamwork, and societal changes that would make it easier for people to live successfully with diabetes.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo explore public knowledge of, and interest in, learning more about medicines R&D in six European countries.DesignOnline survey of 6931 members of the public across Europe.MethodsThe survey formed part of a public omnibus survey. A quota sampling approach was used with quotas set according to national census data on age, gender and government region. The survey explored the public's knowledge and awareness of medicines R&D, their interest in learning more and the perceived influences on this.ResultsThe survey was completed by 6931 members of the public, over 75% of whom reported having no or less than good knowledge of medicines R&D. Males were more likely than females to report good knowledge (17% vs 15%), and knowledge appeared to decrease with age. Those who were currently or had previously been involved in medical research were almost five times more likely to report good knowledge of medicines R&D overall (43% vs 13%). Participants reported good knowledge of medicines safety and clinical trials but little knowledge of pharmacoeconomics. They were most interested in learning more about medicines safety and personalised and predictive medicine and least interested in pharmacoeconomics. Older people, women and respondents with current good knowledge of medicines R&D were most interested in learning more about medicines R&D.ConclusionsExperience of medical research appears to play a key role in increasing public awareness of and future interest in medicines R&D. Some groups may need to be specifically targeted to increase their awareness of medicines R&D, for example, women expressed great interest in learning more but reported less knowledge than men. It may be useful to explore further the views of those who are currently uninterested in learning more.

ObjectivesTo explore European-based pharmaceutical industry professionals’ beliefs about patient and public involvement (PPI) in medicines research and development (R&D).SettingPharmaceutical companies in the UK, Poland and Spain.Participants21 pharmaceutical industry professionals, four based in the UK, five with pan-European roles, four based in Spain and eight based in Poland.MethodQualitative interview study (telephone and face-to-face, semistructured interviews). All interviews were audio taped, translated (where appropriate) and transcribed for analysis using the Framework approach.Results21 pharmaceutical industry professionals participated. Key themes were: beliefs about (1) whether patients and the public should be involved in medicines R&D; (2) the barriers and facilitators to PPI in medicines R&D and (3) how the current relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations and patients influence PPI in medicines R&D.ConclusionsAlthough interviewees appeared positive about PPI, many were uncertain about when, how and which patients to involve. Patients and the public's lack of knowledge and interest in medicines R&D, and the pharmaceutical industry's lack of knowledge, interest and receptivity to PPI were believed to be key challenges to increasing PPI. Interviewees also believed that relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations, patients and the public needed to change to facilitate PPI in medicines R&D. Existing pharmaceutical industry codes of practice and negative media reporting of the pharmaceutical industry were also seen as negative influences on these relationships.