Högskolan i Skövde

The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of illness and the encounters with health care professionals among women who attributed their symptoms and illness to either dental restorative materials and/or electromagnetic fields, despite the fact that research on health effects from dental fillings or electricity has failed to substantiate the reported symptoms. Thirteen women (aged 37-63 years) were invited to the study and a qualitative approach was chosen as the study design, and data were collected using semi-structured interviews. The analysis was conducted with a constant comparative method, according to Grounded Theory. The analysis of the results can be described with the core category, "Struggle to obtain redress,'' the two categories, "Stricken with illness'' and "A blot in the protocol,'' and five subcategories. The core category represents the women's fight for approval and arose in the conflict between their experience of developing a severe illness and the doctors' or dentists' rejection of the symptoms as a disease, which made the women feel like malingerers. The informants experienced better support and confirmation from alternative medicine practitioners. However, sick-leave certificates from alternative medicine practitioners were not approved and this led to a continuous cycle of visits in the health care system. To avoid conflicting encounters, it is important for caregivers to listen to the patient's explanatory models and experience of illness, even if a medical answer cannot be given.

Aim. To gain insight into and generate theoretical knowledge about the processes involved when insulin pump-treated adolescents take or miss taking their bolus doses.

Background. Insulin pump treatment is considered the most physiological way to imitate the healthy body’s insulin profile in adolescents with diabetes. Despite insulin pump treatment, it is hard to maintain near-normal glucose control in adolescents; one reason for this is missed bolus doses with meals.

Method. In this qualitative interview study, the grounded theory method was chosen as a model for the collection and analysis of data. Twelve adolescents (five boys and seven girls, mean age: 14.4 years, range: 12–19 years) from different Swedish paediatric diabetes clinics, four parents and one paediatric diabetes nurse were interviewed during 2008 and 2009. Two adolescents and two parents were re-interviewed after approximately 10 months. Data from clinical visits and diabetes camps were used to verify emerging categories.

Findings. Responsibility in the context of taking or missing bolus doses emerged as the core category. It is elaborated and explained through three subcategories: distribution of responsibility, transfer of responsibility and clarification of responsibility. The findings describe the need to clarify the responsibility for diabetes self-management in continuous negotiations between adolescents and parents to avoid missed doses.

Conclusion. Negotiations to clarify the responsibility for diabetes self-management must be a continuous process between adolescents and parents. Diabetes care teams can facilitate and encourage these negotiations.

Objective: To investigate the reasons for missed bolus doses and strategies for avoiding this among adolescents using insulin pumps.

Methods: The grounded theory method was chosen as a model for the collection and analysis of data. Data were collected through interviews with 12 adolescents treated with an insulin pump (5 males and 7 females, mean age 14.4 yr) from different Swedish pediatric diabetes clinics. All interviews were tape-recorded and immediately transcribed.

Results: The core category ‘lost focus’ emerged as representing the main reason for missed bolus doses. Identified subcategories were delayed lost focus, directly lost focus, and totally lost focus. There was a risk of delayed lost focus when the adolescent used postprandial bolusing. Focus could also be lost directly in connection with the start of the meal. Totally lost focus could occur when the adolescent perceived the impact of diabetes as too high or tried to neglect that he or she had it. The category ‘agreements about reminders’ appeared to be the main strategy for avoiding missed bolus doses; subcategories were personal reminders and technical reminders. The adolescent needed to be involved in these agreements; otherwise, the reminding could be seen as nagging and did not work.

Conclusion: The results may help diabetes care teams understand the circumstances in which adolescents miss their bolus doses. This understanding may make it easier to discuss missed doses and strategies for avoiding this with adolescents and support negotiations over agreements about reminders between them and their parents.