A Qualitative Study of Perceived Responsibility and Self-Blame in Type 2 Diabetes: Reflections of Physicians and Patients
- 801 Downloads
Despite new treatment therapies and the emphasis on patient activation, nearly 50 % of diabetes patients have hemoglobin A1c levels above target. Understanding the impact of unmet treatment goals on the physician-patient relationship is important for maintaining quality care in clinical practice.
To explore physicians’ and type 2 diabetes patients’ views of patients’ difficulty achieving diabetes treatment goals.
Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with a semi-structured interview guide.
Nineteen endocrinologists and primary care physicians and 34 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least two years prior.
In-depth interviews with physicians and patients. A multidisciplinary research team performed content and thematic analyses.
Qualitative analysis revealed two main findings, organized by physician and patient perspectives. Physician Perspective: Physicians’ Perceived Responsibility for Patients’ Difficulty Achieving Treatment Goals: Physicians assumed responsibility for their patients not achieving goals and expressed concern that they may not be doing enough to help their patients achieve treatment goals. Physicians’ Perceptions of Patients’ Reactions: Most speculated that their patients may feel guilt, frustration, or disappointment when not reaching goals. Physicians also felt that many patients did not fully understand the consequences of diabetes. Patient Perspective: Patients’ Self-Blame for Difficulty Achieving Treatment Goals: Patients attributed unmet treatment goals to their inability to carry out self-care recommendations. Most patients blamed themselves for their lack of progress and directed their frustration and disappointment inwardly through self-deprecating comments. Patients’ Perceptions of Physicians’ Reactions: Several patients did not know how their physician felt, while others speculated that their physicians might feel disappointed or frustrated.
Physicians’ perceived responsibility and patients’ self-blame for difficulty achieving treatment goals may serve as barriers to an effective relationship. Physicians and patients may benefit from a greater understanding of each other’s frustrations and challenges in diabetes management.
KEY WORDSphysician-patient relationship type 2 diabetes self-care behavior qualitative methodology
This work was supported by the Kathleen P. Welsh Fund, NIDDK RO1-060115, the Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Core NIH P30 DK36836, and the NIH Training Grant No. T32 DK007260. We thank the physicians and patients who shared their experiences and perceptions with us. We also thank Dr. Nadine Palermo, Nicholas Hebert, and Ross Markello for their useful comments on the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
No author received other support for this grant other than funding from the Kathleen P. Welsh Fund. However, Martin J. Abrahamson, MD has provided consulting services to Novo Nordisk, Halozyme, and Boehringer Ingelheim. No other author has anything to declare.
E.A.B. conducted interviews; read, coded, and thematically analyzed the transcripts; and wrote the manuscript. M.D.R. conducted interviews; read, coded, and thematically analyzed the transcripts; and reviewed and edited the manuscript. B.A.H. and K.M.B. read, coded, and thematically analyzed the transcripts and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Y.L. analyzed the quantitative data and reviewed and edited the manuscript. M.J.A. reviewed and edited the manuscript. K.W. had the initial idea for this study and wrote the research proposal; read, coded, and thematically analyzed the transcripts; and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All contributors had access to the data and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
- 1.American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. In 2007. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(3):596-615.Google Scholar
- 8.Von Korff M, Gruman J, Schaefer J, Curry SJ, Wagner EH. Collaborative management of chronic illness. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(12):1097–102.Google Scholar
- 11.Bordin ES. The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice. 1979;26(3):252–60.Google Scholar
- 39.Crosson JC, Heisler M, Subramanian U, et al. Physicians' perceptions of barriers to cardiovascular disease risk factor control among patients with diabetes: results from the translating research into action for diabetes (TRIAD) study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(2):171–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Patton MQ. How to use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: Sage; 1987.Google Scholar
- 43.Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.Google Scholar
- 44.Morse J, Field P. Qualitative Research Methods for Health Profesionals. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
- 45.Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2000.Google Scholar
- 46.Krippendorf K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2004.Google Scholar
- 47.Neuendorf K. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.Google Scholar
- 48.NVivo [computer program]. Version 8. Victoria, Australia: QSR International.Google Scholar
- 49.Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1994.Google Scholar
- 67.Ritholz MD, Beverly EA, Abrahamson MJ, Brooks KM, Hultgren BA, Weinger K. Physicians' Perceptions of the Type 2 diabetes multidisciplinary treatment team: a qualitative study. Diabetes Educ. 2011;37(6):794–800.Google Scholar