Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by richelle on April 29, 2012 at 4:26pm

I don't see how my having Type 1 skews data that other people are creating. I don't have a say in what people respond. I never said this was a perfect study, like I said I acknowledge my limitations. And since I am not trying to tell people it is more than a study with these limitations, nor am I telling people how to respond, I don't think I should be attacked. Please just leave me alone. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just finishing my degree.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teowyn on April 28, 2012 at 10:04am

You have at least one typo in the survey: "tast" when you meant "task" in the fourth or fifth question down from the top.

As a sidenote, I also think there should be a "does not apply to me" option for most of these questions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 28, 2012 at 6:27pm

Maybe the survey is "bait" and the *real* experiment is the thread, to see people get all wound up about the survey?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zoe on April 28, 2012 at 6:43pm

Good one, AR!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerri on April 28, 2012 at 6:50pm

Now, that's an interesting supposition, AR.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spock on April 29, 2012 at 4:19pm

Love it. Much better research.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Miller on April 28, 2012 at 7:07pm

The survey is voluntary. If you want to help richelle out, go ahead. If not, don't take the survey. I get the impression people would take offense regardless of the survey questions or how she responded to the criticism here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TimmyMac on April 29, 2012 at 4:33pm

yeah really, just take the survey and help the girl out! :D We've ALL been asked MUCH more offensive questions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 29, 2012 at 5:36pm

I agree with TimmyMac and the others suggesting it might be more appropriate to offer suggestions/ constructive criticism *after* the conclusions are out there? I'm intrigued by the suggestion as I am sort of oblivious to being bummed out (among other things...) but think that this can be an issue. I think a lot of it is due to flaws in the medical system although, unsurprisingly, doctors don't seem too interested in studying that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zoe on April 29, 2012 at 6:00pm

Now that would be an interesting study, AR: The degree to which those of us who pretty much manage our D on our own do better than those that follow doctor's orders. And the personality type of who does which. I think that would even feed into the OP's idea of learned helplessness but in a more positive (and interesting!) way: What sort of person follows doctor's orders to the letter and when they still have A1C's in the 8's they shrug and say, "but the doctor told me to eat 500 carbs a day, take a set dose of insulin, and only test 2x a day!". And what sort of person comes on here, reads books, learns about their D, and conducts their own personal science experiment on a daily basis to get the best possible results. I'd also be interested to see if it correlated to education. That is people with less formal education tend to have more blind trust for doctors and say, "I can't really understand those things" (even if their intelligence means they could!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 29, 2012 at 6:45pm

I've noted that the "Averages" in the geographic areas delineated in TuAnalyze seem to run around 6.9-7.7, not a huge range but that's about where doctors seem to be aiming, even though, according to the chart, that's an avg BG 168-193, well above the range at which complications start. There's also a lot of "allstars" of the blogosphere who, despite tools, are not achieving Bernsteinian "normal" numbers nor "acidrock/ Zoe" decent numbers?

To me, that's a medical problem that doctors should be more proactively trying to fix. If patients give up and drop out, that may be a psychological tool but, if the "average" in our "above average" community is above the number (I've read 140 is where complications start but, well, I'm not entirely inclined to trust stuff like the DCCT, which dates back to the early 1980s or thereabouts?) that's healthy, I think that medicine in general should be concerned about their own dismal failure to help "us". The recent Hungary story, if you don't make A1C goal, you get the bad insulin, was interesting but perhaps they should approach it from the provider side? If your patients don't get A1Cs, you get training and will pay AcidRock, Zoe, BSC, etc. to come consult with your practice and cover our bestial expense accounts while we are "on patrol"...heh heh heh...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by still_young_at_heart on April 29, 2012 at 7:04pm

Zoe,

I'm sure you don't mean that there is a clean dichotomy between those who follow doctor's orders (bad care) and those who manage their own care (good care). My doctor's order is to make adjustments as necessary and when he sees things that he doesn't like he suggests an education session or a tweak.

I'd be interested in your science experiment study but formal education not only correlates with intellectual independence but with a basic skill in quantitative methods, higher income and access to better tools and a host of other advantages. A higher level of education also may encourage medical staff to provide more detailed basic education in diabetes control and prescriptions for more test strips.

To be poor, poorly educated and diabetetic in the United States is a set up for poor outcomes. A motivated patient can overcome those obstacles but it is a much harder path than either you or I have to walk.

Maurie

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page