ObjectiveTo explore general practitioners’ (GPs) and primary care nurses’ perceived barriers to raising the topic of weight in general practice.DesignA qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). 34 semistructured interviews were conducted to explore views, opinions and experiences of initiating a discussion about weight. Content and thematic analyses were used to analyse the interview transcripts.SettingGeneral practices located in one primary care trust in the South West of England.Participants17 GPs and 17 nurses aged between 32 and 66 years. The modal age range for GPs was 30–39 years and for nurses, 40–49 years.ResultsBarriers were synthesised into three main themes: (1) limited understanding about obesity care, (2) concern about negative consequences, and (3) having time and resources to raise a sensitive topic. Most barriers were related to raising the topic in more routine settings, rather than when dealing with an associated medical condition. GPs were particularly worried about damaging their relationship with patients and emphasised the need to follow their patient's agenda.ConclusionsUncertainty about obesity, concerns about alienating patients and feeling unable to raise the topic within the constraints of a 10 min consultation, is adding to the reluctance of GPs and nurses to broach the topic of weight. Addressing these concerns through training or by providing evidence of effective interventions that are feasible to deliver within consultations may lead to greater practitioner engagement and willingness to raise the topic.

BackgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables users to view real-time interstitial glucose readings and provides information on the direction and rate of change of blood glucose levels. Users can also access historical data to inform treatment decisions. While the clinical and psychological benefits of CGM are well established, little is known about how individuals use CGM to inform diabetes self-management. We explored participants’ experiences of using CGM in order to provide recommendations for supporting individuals to make optimal use of this technology.MethodsIn-depth interviews (n = 24) with adults, adolescents and parents who had used CGM for ≥4 weeks; data were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants found CGM an empowering tool because they could access blood glucose data effortlessly, and trend arrows enabled them to see whether blood glucose was rising or dropping and at what speed. This predicative information aided short-term lifestyle planning and enabled individuals to take action to prevent hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Having easy access to blood glucose data on a continuous basis also allowed participants to develop a better understanding of how insulin, activity and food impacted on blood glucose. This understanding was described as motivating individuals to make dietary changes and break cycles of over-treating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Participants also described how historical CGM data provided a more nuanced picture of blood glucose control than was possible with blood glucose self-monitoring and, hence, better information to inform changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. However, while participants expressed confidence making immediate adjustments to insulin and lifestyle to address impending hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, most described needing and expecting health professionals to interpret historical CGM data and determine changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. While alarms could reinforce a sense of hypoglycaemic safety, some individuals expressed ambivalent views, especially those who perceived alarms as signalling personal failure to achieve optimal glycaemic control.ConclusionsCGM can be an empowering and motivational tool which enables participants to fine-tune and optimize their blood glucose control. However, individuals may benefit from psycho-social education, training and/or technological support to make optimal use of CGM data and use alarms appropriately.

Objective: To explore individuals' experiences of daytime use of a day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system, their information and support needs, and their views about how future systems could be improved. Research Design and Methods: Twenty-four adults, adolescents, and parents were interviewed before using a hybrid day-and-night closed-loop system and 3 months later, data were analyzed thematically. Results: Participants praised the closed loop's ability to respond to high and low blood glucose in ways which extended beyond their own capabilities and to act as a safety net and mop up errors, such as when a mealtime bolus was forgotten or unplanned activity was undertaken. Participants also described feeling less burdened by diabetes as a consequence and more able to lead flexible, spontaneous lives. Contrary to their initial expectations, and after trust in the system had been established, most individuals wanted opportunities to collaborate with the closed loop to optimize its effectiveness. Such individuals expressed a need to communicate information, such as when routines changed or to indicate different intensities of physical activity. While individuals valued frequent contact with staff in the initial month of use, most felt that their long-term support needs would be no greater than when using an insulin pump. Conclusions: While participants reported substantial benefits to using the closed loop during the day, they also identified ways in which the technology could be refined and education and training tailored to optimize effective use. Our findings suggest that mainstreaming this technology will not necessarily lead to increased demands on clinical staff.

Aims We explored whether, how and why moving onto and using a hybrid day‐and‐night closed‐loop system affected people's food choices and dietary practices to better understand the impact of this technology on everyday life and inform recommendations for training and support given to future users. Methods Twenty‐four adults, adolescents and parents were interviewed before commencing use of the closed‐loop system and following its 3‐month use. Data were analysed thematically and longitudinally. Results While participants described preparing and/or eating similar meals to those consumed prior to using a closed‐loop, many described feeling more normal and less burdened by diabetes in dietary situations. Individuals also noted how the use of this technology could lead to deskilling (less precise carbohydrate counting) and less healthy eating (increased snacking and portion sizes and consumption of fatty, energy‐dense foods) because of the perceived ability of the system to deal with errors in carbohydrate counting and address small rises in blood glucose without a corrective dose needing to be administered. Conclusions While there may be quality‐of‐life benefits to using a closed‐loop, individuals might benefit from additional nutritional and behavioural education to help promote healthy eating. Refresher training in carbohydrate counting may also be necessary to help ensure that users are able to undertake diabetes management in situations where the technology might fail or that they take a break from using it.

Increasing ethical attention and debate is focusing on whether individuals who take part in clinical trials should be given access to post-trial care. However, the main focus of this debate has been upon drug trials undertaken in low-income settings. To broaden this debate, we report findings from interviews with individuals (n ¼ 24) who participated in a clinical trial of a closed-loop system, which is a medical device under development for people with type 1 diabetes that automatically adjusts blood glucose to help keep it within clinically recommended ranges. Individuals were recruited from UK sites and interviewed following trial close-out, at which point the closed-loop had been withdrawn. While individuals were stoical and accepting of the requirement to return the closed-loop, they also conveyed varying degrees of distress. Many described having relaxed diabetes management practices while using the closed-loop and having become deskilled as a consequence, which made reverting back to pre-trial regimens challenging. Participants also described unanticipated consequences arising from using a closed-loop. As well as deskilling, these included experiencing psychological and emotional benefits that could not be sustained after the closed-loop had been withdrawn and participants reevaluating their pre-and post-trial life in light of having used a closed-loop and now perceiving this life much more negatively. Participants also voiced frustrations about experiencing better blood glucose control using a closed-loop and then having to revert to using what they now saw as antiquated and imprecise self-management tools. We use these findings to argue that ethical debates about post-trial provisioning need to be broadened to consider potential psychological and emotional harms, and not just clinical harms, that may result from withdrawal of investigated treatments. We also suggest that individuals may benefit from information about potential nonclinical harms to help make informed decisions about trial participation.