Nowadays, in the field of the diabetes, it is a common scenario that more and more people consider type 2 diabetes as a primary health concern. For people working with or taking take of persons with diabetes, they are thankful that diabetes care is now getting nationwide recognition. However, in certain matters, we can observe a lack of investment in continuing learning prospects for practitioners.
According to Cooper et al. (2002), in the year 2000, the Audit Commission recognized a discrepancy in knowledge and understanding regarding diabetes among patients, and a scarcity of evidence-based practice as well. In view of this fact, Cooper et al. (2005) carried out a study to determine the effects of a diabetes-specific health education program. Their research centered on what patients recognize to be valuable and beneficial to them in the educational approach espoused.
The study stressed the necessity for an interdisciplinary method to patient education with regards to diabetes. Cooper et al. (2005) said that diabetes nurses have long been leading the activities in underatking such programs. The authors further asserted that the role of these diabetes nurses in cmoing up with a standardized approach to patient education training has to demonstrate good practice founded on research evidence of what works best and what is most applicable.
Furthermore, Cooper et al. (2002) claimed that education has been stressed as a primary component of the treatment for diabetics. As a consequence, attention has therefore centered on the necessity for effective and efficient provision of education services that are both accessible and inclusive.
Nevertheless, the Audit Commission has recognized gaps in present service provision. In addition, as stated earlier, the Commission likewise discovered serious and critical deficits in knowledge and understanding regarding diabetes among patients, and a scarcity of evidence-based practice. At present, the findings of the Commission are upsetting and disturbing, and this issue is expanded by the concentration on diabetes nurses as the major players in providing such treatment (Cooper et al., 2002.)
Given these conditions and because of the constraints in continuing educational prospects it is now a concern if how could we maintain and preserve an informed and dynamic workforce for diabetes care where diabetes practitioners are under pressure (Phillips, 2006). It is also a question if diabetes is not interesting enough for workforce investment save for the pharmaceutical giants. At present, several diabetes practitioners consider that this source of funding is the lone source that allows further or additional study.
Meanwhile, Guirguis et al. (2006) declared that pharmacists could play a significant part in the health of diabetics. They said that an increasing body of research has showed that pharmacists could effectively and successfully offer care to diabetics and in several instances enhance their health outcomes as well. In addition, Guirguis & Chewning (2004) claimed that supposed pharmacy students’ role beliefs and patient reactions were strong predictors of pharmacy students’ reported purpose to inquire regarding the diabetes ABCs someday.
In terms of diabetes education, Anderson et al. (2005) said that diabetes educators employ theories constantly, even if they are not conscious of it. The authors said that in order to teach, one should first have certain suppositions regarding how people gain knowledge of the matter and what comprises effective and successful teaching. Hence, the purpose of their study is to assist diabetes educators concerned in research and evaluation on how to choose the proper theories.
Their study assessed the four (4) rationales of theories, specifically, description, explanation, control, and prediction, in addition to the extent to which a theory has been expressed and expanded. The authors also evaluated the significance of a theory’s explanatory power, its personal resonance, and its utility. Moreover, their study assessed how to employ one or more theories at every period of an evaluation or research or project.
Moreover, Anderson et al. (2005) maintained that theories could be vital instruments for the purpose, comprehension, and carrying out of diabetes patient education research. The authors emphasized that they could be particularly useful in the design and assessment of intervention research as well. Furthermore, educational researchers will take advantage of the implementation of theories that reverberate with their experience, have been expanded by way of reflection and argument with their peers, and have been experimented by means of research.
They likewise said that such theories would offer a coherent, powerful, and strong base on which to perform research studies. Moreover, Anderson et al. (2005) claimed that diabetes educators derive benefit from theory-based interventions that can be successfully converted into various settings numerous diabetes educators. Theory-based research that is the basis of effective interventions provides greater understanding of how to be effective educators and enhances the credibility of the profession.
Based on these studies, I can say that as diabetes received national public health recognition, it is somewhat confusing why investment is not being made to support and also protect the workforce involved in diabetes education in improving excellence in care and upholding care on the cusp of evidence-based delivery.
Furthermore, I have learned that diabetes education must not be viewed as a luxury, but instead it should be regarded as a necessity because it is definitely a significant part of the clilical governance program of constant learning. Moreover, it will definitely be advantageous and beneficial for people with diabetes to recognize that the care that is being given to them is up-to-date and that they are being given the best alternatives. #
Anderson, R. et al. (2005). Choosing and Using Theories in Diabetes Education Research. The Diabetes Educator.
Cooper, H. et al. (2002). Diabetes education: the patient’s perspective. Journal of Diabetes Nursing.
Guirguis, L. et al. (2006). Evaluation of Structured Patient Interactions: The Diabetes Check. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.
Guirguis, L. & B. Chewning. (2004). Talking to pharmacists about diabetes: How to ask about monitoring clinical targets. Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association.
Phillips, A. (June 2006). Developing the diabetes workforce: no longer a priority? Journal of Diabetes Nursing.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more