That is good honest data, though. There is no supposition that we T1's feel helpless. That's what the question is asking - whether or not there is a relationship, and if there is not, that is what I need to show with the results, you know?
I'm a Psychology Instructor, Richelle. I teach my students to look at various studies objectively, in order to take into consideration the bias of the researcher and to see how statistics can be used to show one thing as well as its opposite. You are correct that research methods are meant to be objective. But you are incorrect that the researcher does not start out with a desired result. And if I had a dollar for every study that was later invalidated because the researcher let their bias seep in either consciously or unconsciously..
You are yourself a Type 1, Richelle? Why, then would you choose such a negative topic? You could have done your project on so many more positive topics like "Are participants in the DOC more proactive in their own care?" or "How are Diabetics portrayed in the media?" or "What differences are there in the management of Type 1's diagnosed as children versus those diagnosed later in life?" Or even, "Is there a correlation between numbers of carbs eaten and a1c?"
Because my degree is in Psychology, I had to test a psychological construct. The literature that exists (which I have to build off of, I can't just ask a question that I am personally curious about, unfortunately...) is on negative psychological effects, probably because psych research is more involved in trying to fix things. Researchers always stress "what are the implications?" and so I think that has created an environment where negative constructs get more attention. I'm not saying it's right at all, but it's what I have to work with. Whatever the data ends up saying, at least something is learned, or at least I gained some experience conducting research (this is my first project, so it is a learning experience).
Maybe the survey is "bait" and the *real* experiment is the thread, to see people get all wound up about the survey?
Good one, AR!!
Now, that's an interesting supposition, AR.
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.
I don’t see how I am being bias. I reviewed the literature and am only repeating a previous research question with a newer measure of learned helplessness. I don’t understand why I am being attacked so harshly. I am just a student.
No, it is skewed data based on your bias, especially if you are a T1, which your comment suugests, makes it even more biased. Sorry. In my degree quest, I have done too much research with one skewed idea. I always lose in the research, ...and the grade.
Love it. Much better research.
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.
yeah really, just take the survey and help the girl out! :D We've ALL been asked MUCH more offensive questions.
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.
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!)
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...
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.
To be poor, poorly educated and diabetetic in the United States is a set up for poor outcomes.
I was basically just thinking out loud, Maurie. Though, unfortunately I don't think your doctor is typical?
Yes, unfortunately, there are many people struggling with the obstacles you describe.
I'm sure he's not "typical" as he's senior staff at the Joslin but I'm not sure how atypical he is for an endo. I would guess it's a much bigger problem with primary care physicians and T2s. The patient can't really play around too much with oral drugs and there doesn't seem to be much effort placed in helping people eat to meter.