Annoyed with diabetes Aust campaign

In this part of the Reality Check website, the moderators have saved discussion threads out of the rest of the forum which have addressed a popular issue containing terrific information, or threads that have generated a lot of discussion and which we feel people may well find useful to refer to in future.

Annoyed with diabetes Aust campaign

Postby Jase » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:48 pm

Hey everyone, well, finally i registered because it wouldnt let me start a new topic otherwise, lol, hope it stops those damn spammers!

Anyway, im annoyed with the south australian diabetes people (even though i live in Sydney), i recently came across the fact that they are doing an ad campaign and thought id try to find it, and i was pretty dissapointed.

Moderator insertion here-I find the images etc in this campaign unnecessarily disturbing and off putting so if you don't fancy being confronted with scare tactics of the worst kind-then please don't click on the links

You can see it here http://www.dontignorediabetes.com.au/ just click on 'Watch the Ad'.

It doesnt even mention type 1. But at least their website does under 'Get the Facts', unlike the diabetes SA site itself, which has no mention of Type 1.

http://www.diabetessa.com.au/ <- diabetes SA site
http://www.diabetessa.com.au/diabetes.html <- no mention of type 1

Anyway, im pretty much used to type 1 being ignored like this by now, but you woudl think diabetessa.com.au would be big enough to at least mention it, and as far as the ad campaign goes, i just see it as a lost opportunity, for maybe 20 more seconds they could have actually made an informative ad about type 1 and type 2, the causes and the treatments, instead they just decided to show a lot of pictures for their shock value.
Jase
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Acey » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:20 pm

Hi Jase!

If you click the link at the bottom of the http://www.diabetessa.com.au/diabetes.html page labelled Continued, it will take you to this page: http://www.diabetessa.com.au/diabetes2.html, which talks about type 1 and gestational as well as IGT and IFG
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle
Acey
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Melbourne

Postby Jase » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:38 pm

oh nice, bit hard to find though

not sure why they wouldnt put it all on the same page
Jase
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Mel » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:52 pm

HI Jase,

I am not concerned about the campaign from a type 1/type 2 perspective but am extremely concerned about the shock tactics. From what I understand the campaign is national and is being promoted by DA national. I find the campaign shallow and all it is likely to do is cause depression and anxiety amongst people who have either type 1 or 2 diabetes-such that I am extremely tempted to remove the links to it from your post Jase-who wants to see that crap AND it is designed for people who don't know anything about diabetes so is sort of not helpful at all to have it here. I am open to input from people BUT I would ask you all if somebody was newly diagnosed, particularly with type 1 and came to this site for help and advice-or was somebody like many of us just tried to get their d act together after a misspent youth-do you think looking at that website would be likely to cause some pyschological distress?

I would also be interested to know who has financed this campaign it says over $1million has been spent.

RC is forumulating a response to this campaign as we speak so if you have seen info about the ads etc or you feel strong enough to look at this scare campaign then we would be really interested in your feedback-either here or by email.

PLEASE if you do feel anxious about your diabetes and depressed about complications (and who doesn't at some time or another) give the campaign a miss and either way maybe seek some psycho-social support-either here, amongst your family and friends or speak to your GP, endo or a d counsellor
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Sal » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:07 pm

Mel - I second your comments. DA's use of shock tactics is horrible. What is worse is that last night I saw the ACT Minister of Health 'launching' the campaign in the ACT and talking about how the terrible consequences of diabetes shown in the campaign are avoidable (no talk of T1 vs T2).

Now what makes this truely terrible is that the ACT Minister for Health's father is a long-term Type 1 (and also DA's national advocacy officer)! He should know better.
* Sal *
Sal
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Canberra

Postby Jase » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:12 pm

Personally id rather see it on a forum that is encouraging discussion about it, than on TV so i didnt think it would be so bad to put here, but i see what you are saying

I'd like to help in responding to this to diabetes australia if its at all possible

Im quite amazed that they spent over $1m on that commercial as well..

If anyone has seen that commercial for cancer (i think its only on cable channels, im not sure) it has hugh jackman and olivia newton john just standing there talking about it, no need for graphic images or anything like that, although it didnt have an overwhelming amount of information on cancer it still came across as very professional.. especially compared to this diabetes commercial
Jase
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Bruno » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:12 pm

The shock tactics used in ads by the NSW RTA against drink driving, and by the dept of health against smoking, have worked very well. They are a reasonably acceptable approach to their respective problems for one very good reason - that the respective behaviours are (in the first instance) purely a matter of choice, as opposed to being either a little-known consequence of some more benign behaviours or simply a medical "accident".

Sure, T2 is somewhat preventable, just like it's somewhat reversible. But the primary causal link (ignoring diabetes - whatever that encompasses), sufficient to justify showing the results of limb amputations, is simply not there.

I can think of one ad campaign that does show the results of limb amputations, it's by NSW Workcover, and it's about "don't ignore OH&S". The caption below the triple amputee is "I thought I knew the tractor backwards". Now that's a causal link, imho.
{'*'}
Bruno
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby HL » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:21 pm

Can't wait until my newly diagnosed 6 year old sees the adds, it's hard enough explaining things anyway.
HL
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:19 pm
Location: Adelaide

Postby Bruno » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:25 pm

Jase wrote:Im quite amazed that they spent over $1m on that commercial as well.
...and while I'm on the subject...

Now I may be way off the beam here, but to me this speaks of only one thing - commercial sponsorship from the makers of a scheduled drug. I expect there's also a parallel campaign currently targetting all the GP's. A bit like the "see your doctor" campaign for a "men's health" prescription remedy, or the "I will improve my diet in 2005" campaign for a well-known appetite suppressant, neither of which mentioned the drug's name, though the latter did feature it's packaging colour scheme. There's no "market" as such for healthy lifestyles, but there's plenty of potential customers to be developed for a well-marketed antidiabetic drug. And I guess that lazy consumers are easily "rewarded" in this manner for their lack of attentiveness.
{'*'}
Bruno
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Mel » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:38 pm

Bruno-the campaign is targetted at GPs too I don't think there is any sponsorship-at least they are being entirely unethical in not disclosing it if there is and I don't think they'd be that dreadful-would they?

HL your situation simultaneously breaks my heart and makes me angry.

Sal-this is DA's campaign-you'd think they'd know better and care more.
Interestingly I have seen DANSW's D week campaign launch and they don't seem to be promoting this campaign at all, maybe they have some concern for their members???? I hope that is it.

Any input or if you would like to share your story about the impact or potential impact of the campaign we would love to hear to inform our "response"-we will also put up some suggested responses that you can send to your relevant contacts, I hope as a minimum if you see the posters etc in pharmacies or GP surgeries or heaven forbid in your d clinic that you let the people there know how inappropriate the material is.

Email me at melinda@realitycheck.org.au
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby AndrewR » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:29 pm

Its pretty obvious that the campaign is focussed on Type 2 diabetes, with a little mote time they could have outlined some of the signs of diabetes (T1 AND T2) instead of the risk factors of T2...

'Do you urinate frequently or suffer from excessive thirst..it could be diabetes
and you should see your doctor for a check'
Easy...

It does though gets people thinking about diabetes - and how serious it can be if not treated.
AndrewR
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Adelaide

Postby Cara » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:30 pm

I wasn't overly impressed with the DA campaigns either but it was formulated based on the results from TAC and Quit "shock" campaigns and the research suggesting that Australians don't take Type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes seriously.

From what I've read in the info pack I got to go with it (health professionals pack), it was put through focus groups etc. We are using it in the organisation I work for. I was prepared for the ads etc as I got the stuff a few weeks ago.

Glad I didn't see it when all newly diagnosed and scared.
Cara
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:08 am
Location: Kensington VIC

Postby Mel » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:48 pm

Cara-my information suggests that the focus groups specifically EXCLUDED people with diabetes-hence my concern that there was no study done on the impact on people with diabetes. I would be happy to hear otherwise though, maybe you have more information.

Also as Bruno pointed out diabetes is a very different thing from smoking, I don't think it is appropriate to use tactics from one to inform a different type of campaign.

Also, are you supporting your organisations's use of the campaign materials when you say you are glad you didn't see it when newly diagnosed?
Last edited by Mel on Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Jase » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:51 pm

The majority of 'awareness' things like this seem to be either using shock tactics like this commercial, or are the complete opposite and telling people 'they can do anything with diabetes' and treating it like its not much more than the flu or something..

There never seems to be anything in the middle that is actually useful
Jase
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby kellee » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:56 pm

In the weekend paper here (Sunday Tasmanian) there was a 2 page spread regarding Diabetes and they actually printed how many Tasmanians lose their legs each year to Diabetes! (67 if anyone was interested). Here's me eating breakfast and seeing someone who has had his leg amputated.. Scare tactics!

But I guess they're trying to get across the reasoning of what might happen if you choose to not manage your diabetes correctly.

What I thought was great was that there were places like Gym's offering discounts and or waiving joining fees for diabetics (I guess you'd have to show your NDSS card or something?). I thought that offering something like that is more proactive and getting people motivated to look after themselves rather than showing them scary bits is a lot better.

But hey, that's me ....
"You have two ears and one mouth and should use them in that proportion"
kellee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Postby EmmaC » Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:07 pm

But I guess they're trying to get across the reasoning of what might happen if you choose to not manage your diabetes correctly.


I find that comment offensive and superficial and unfortunately that sort of attitude is encouraged by campaigns like the one being discussed.

I recently had a vitrectomy for retinopathy the procedure is one of the scary pictures shown on the campaign website-I have had diabetes for 33years. I did not CHOOSE to not manage my diabetes correctly and let me reiterate there is NO evidence that complications ONLY happen to those who do not manage their diabetes correctly. There can also be many complex reasons for poor control, some physical some mental and emotional.

Diabetes is a complex, longterm disease and those suffering complications now were not even able to attempt what would pass for poor control now because of the inadequate treatments available 20 years ago.
The opposite of faith is not doubt, the opposite of faith is certainty.
EmmaC
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:08 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Bruno » Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:25 pm

Losing limbs is (in chess parlance) an end game scenario. The kind of person who will ignore this kind of ultimatum is also the kind of person who eventually ends up losing limbs etc. Their damage is already as good as done.

People who can be convinced to change can usually be convinced easily. These are the sort of people who will probably never reach these end game scenarios, because they will make at least some or the necessary changes. They're not ignoring diabetes, they're simply uninformed.

Majoring on the intermediate and reversible symptoms of diabetes, those that directly affect and are directly affected by lifestyle and choices, is the way to reach the masses. Exageration is tantemount to lying, which is a breach of trust - people are not stupid, and I fear this is a setback that our cause cannot afford.
{'*'}
Bruno
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Mel » Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:35 pm

Bruno-very well said.

I do have issues though about the whole complications thing being "your fault" in line with what EmmaC said. I agree losing a limb is kinda an end-game scenario and actually out of all the people with d the amputation rate isn't all that high if teh figures Kellee quotes are correct Retinopathy (for which I've had laser etc) isn't end game and the incidence of retinopathy is pretty high, many type 1s will get complications but they won't be major and catastrophic like they are portrayed in this campaign, it IS dishonest and the whole campaign loses credibility-very good point.
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Brook » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:21 pm

Darryl wanted to watch but was sickened by the pictures. He is also pissed off at the "your fault" message as he is struggling to control what at the moment is out of HIS control. Because we are on dialup the ad was slow to load. When finally it said type 2, he said "Oh, that's alright. It's type 2" but only because the pictures were really getting to him and this looked like an escape route out of the ad. This is an example of people who are vulnerable to the ads - newly diagnosed AND in honeymoon and feeling not in control.

As a health professional, I meet many newly diagnosed type 2 that one would never have guessed would have diabetes. Slim, fit people who unfortunately have strong family histories of type 2. Everyone has lifestyle issues to tighten up (D and non-D alike) but getting type 2 definitely wasn't their fault.

The best we can strive for his optimal control and the rest is luck. It's the difference between excellence and perfection - to excel at controlling your diabetes does not lead to perfect numbers or perfect health.
Brook
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby JoJo » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:37 pm

i think that scare tactics are good ONLY when used in the right way, eg.
one of my friends, she doesn't take good care of her D, had lots of hypos and went to hospital lots. so the nurses decided to do a test (i can't remember what is was exactly (something about cutting your arm) but it's how it was done years and years ago) and they told her that if she didn't start to take some control, every time she came in they were going to do it (it sounded very painfull too) and it worked, she is no where near perfect but she has some control now and cares a little about it.

scare tactics are good when used to the person involved in a more personal situation, but not in these ads.

also with smoking and drink driving ect every one knows what it is, but not every one knows about D and are really missinformed about T1 and T2. i wonder if any D will be told something like "cheese bugers are unhealthy your going to get bad control and get your leg cut off like the person on the tv."

there's another comercial about healthy eating with a person made up of fruit and vegies (suppose to mean "you are what you eat"). it says "healthy eating can help prevent heart disease..... D..... ect ect" nothing about T1 or T2.
Duh, I have sugar diabetes.
JoJo
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Wollongong, NSW

Postby Kate » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:47 pm

Sorry I'm late to join this discussion - time zone issues - just got to work.

This campaign has brought to the surface a number of things which have been upsetting/worrying me for a long time now:

Firtsly, the psych impact of diabetes is highly underestimated - whoever developed/signed-off on the ad has totally misjudged the worry/upset/depression/anxiety (and heaven forbid anything more extreme) that shit scaring us will cause. Where is the bit saying "if you are concerned about this and have diabetes already, please call this number or your endo (if you're lucky to have their number), or your diabetes counsellor (the 4 practising in Australia, thanks.)"

Secondly, that people (large chunks of the medical profession and obviously now the bureaucrats too) believe complications (and Type 2 diabetes for that matter) are entirely preventable. Sure better control means better results in the main but as many people have posted here it doesn't help to be blamed for the damage diabetes might do, as if you are solely responsible. It's not like throwing out a packet of cigarettes. You can't just give up diabetes, or give up the genetic risk of Type 2!

They're the biggies. I concur with Mel in reccommending that people don't watch the ads unless you're feeling particularly brave or numb. And I would be most concerned (though not all that surprised) if diabetic clinics or the like were actively using these materials. But perhaps we could hear more about how the ad will impact undiagnosed Type 2s. Entirely agree this is an enormous and challenging problem. But I'm yet to be convinced that scaring the shit out of even the high risk ones will actually get them into the well-managed diabetes category ... it's a bit more complex than one appointment at the GP. And what about the poor GPs who are about to be over-run .... [/img]
Kate
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby kellee » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:52 pm

Firstly, I didn't make up any figures regarding amputation, I quoted what was in the newspaper here, if you disagree your argument is not with me but the media.

Nor did I condone what they were saying. From my experience, and yes I am only a measly TYPE 2 INSULIN DEPENDENT (suffering kidney issues already at 26), there are members of my family who just thought they could forget about their diabetes, and after seeing those kind of examples they actually started to care.
I know that learning that those things could happen to me certainly made me sit up and take notice so in that manner they were effective to me.

I also disagree that there is too much reference to Type 2 and not enough information explaining the two types. But again, that's not my fault.

I certainly did NOT intend to insult or be offensive in any manner. Geeze..
"You have two ears and one mouth and should use them in that proportion"
kellee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Postby kellee » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:01 pm

I agree Kate with what you said regarding undiagnosed Type 2 diabetics.

What some type 1's might not understand (but probably do) is that when you're diagnosed as a Type 2 you're probably not actually feeling sick or having any problems, like myself. I wasn't unwell when I was diagnosed, it was something I wanted to know my risk of having as it is genetic in my fathers side of the family.

That being said, for type 2 diabetics who weren't feeling unwell at the time of diagnosis it's very hard to adjust to having to manage diabetes when you really didn't know you had it in the first place. I hope that makes sense.

In my situation, I was put on insulin immediately so I had to take a lot more interest in the management of my diabetes (which is GREAT because I came across RC after all..) but for those who are told to manage it with diet and exercise alone it probably doesn't seem as 'important'. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're not sick when you're diagnosed with diabetes there may be people out there who don't feel the need to care as much as they should..

Does that make sense? LOL I have a tendency to ramble...
"You have two ears and one mouth and should use them in that proportion"
kellee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Postby EmmaC » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:11 pm

Kellee

I don't see anyone accusing you of making up figures or getting any figures wrong.

You attitude about "sitting up" and taking notice ie endorsing the effectiveness of the ads makes me sure that the divide between the type 1s and 2s is so wide it can never be bridged. Inherent in that "taking notice "attitude is the view that complications are the fault of the person for not managing their diabetes which is the view I took exception to in the first place. You are entitled to that view I still find it offensive and I hope if your kidneys continue to detoriarate your health professionals won't tell you that it was a consequence of choosing not to manage your diabetes correctly.
The opposite of faith is not doubt, the opposite of faith is certainty.
EmmaC
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:08 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Kate » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:12 pm

Hey Kelle - That's an important point you've made. Thanks for contributing your experience. I just wish there was some more balance to the campaign - especially from the peak body representing people with diabetes. It's worth throwing into the mix another perspective that in my experience of working with many young people with diabetes, when confronted with scare tactics about complications, many perceive it to be such a big hurdle to jump (ie tightly controlling their diabetes) that they just give up and neglect their health substantially, assuming the complications are a done deal and there's nothing within their reach that they can do to avoid it. A complicated one but there has to be a way to have more balance.
Kate
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby kellee » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:16 pm

Hi Emma,
Thanks for the reply. You are right, it's such a huge gap between Type 1 and Type 2, and I too agree that not enough has been done to explain the difference.
Hopefully things change one day.

Cheers!

Kel
"You have two ears and one mouth and should use them in that proportion"
kellee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Postby kellee » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:18 pm

Thanks too Kate, I probably should have been more specific in my first post that I was referring to the situation for Type 2 diabetics.

I know that Type 1's have it a HELL of a lot harder, I take my hat off to you all.
"You have two ears and one mouth and should use them in that proportion"
kellee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:56 pm

Postby Be11ydancer » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:32 pm

I find the whole campaign quite offensive. As a T2 who ended up having bad control for some time (because my pancreas was slowly shutting down) I am already facing fear and guilt about the damage I may have caused in that period. I now know that my 'bad' control wasn't my fault- I couldn't have possibly been expected to have 'good' control given the circumstances. However, at the time I felt like a failure -even though I was following a strict diet and exercise routine, I couldn't get a BGL below 20. If I had've seen that add at that time I would have curled up in a feotal position and wailed for a couple of hours.

How am I going to explain the adds to my class?- they know I am diabetic-it's something that I am quite open about-Won't this stuff make them worry about what could happen to their teacher? Will I once again have to put up with being told all about how my diabetes is all my fault? Will this lead to more virilant food nazism for all diabetics? How about those who are newly diagnosed and already feeling off kilter? T2 diagnosis is at first a quite scarey thing- you don't know what to eat to get your BGL down and people keep telling you that is all your fault and how they know somebody with D and they had all these complications.

Maybe we should all get together and lobby DA to put a stop to these adds. If everyone who visits this forum wrote a letter explaining exactly why they are offended and how they see these adds as causing more harm than good then maybe we could stop it before some poor newly diagnosed youngster (or oldie) ends up staring at a poster of a legless diabetic while waiting to see an educator or other health care proffessional. Or worse still- what if we all have to end up eyeing off that eye picture waiting for a bus/train/taxi while we think about the probability of getting some complication or other. (It would just about make your day wouldn't it)
Dance like it hurts. Love like you need money. Work when people are watching.
Be11ydancer
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:47 am
Location: Penruff Sydney

Postby Mel » Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:30 pm

I agree Bellydancer, I think your first para sums up the problems that many type 2s and most type 1s face. It is often crap medical care that causes people to have high sugars and it is horrible that they are blamed for it too and these ads just perpetuate that. I think this campaign is offensive to type 1s and type 2s, there is a prevention aspect for some type 2s but many are just subject to bad genes. I am all for stressing the difference btw the types but not for spreading misinformation about either type of d.

Interesting idea re lobbying DA-considering that the board of DA who appoint the staff is ELECTED by members maybe members (and future members) of DA should make their views known next time an election comes around-a bit of branch stacking never goes astray either, I also think we need to make our views known to anybody who might have financed the campaign- the website doesn't give any clues was this paid for from member funds or the Govt or sponsorship or what?

As I think I mentioned elsewhere DANSW as far as I can see has run a more positive albeit type 2 focused campaign and I am hugely pleasantly surprised by this and think the Board & mgt are to be patted on the back for this if they did indeed choose to ignore the national campaign.
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Kate » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:00 am

To those who have seen the ad /website / graphic images .... how did it make you feel? I think we'll all respond differently of course. I immediately thought of the people I know who've had eye problems/surgery when I saw that nasty pic and felt very sad for them ....

I'd be really keen to know what others' responses were? (But if you don't feel like watching/looking, again please don't.)
Kate
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby Brook » Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:19 am

On a more positive note, the ads showing in NZ are encouraging and helpful for helping to prevent type 2 by increasing exercise.

The "Push Play" and "Move your body" ads are encouraging people to be more active. The ads say that you can get exercise anywhere just by getting off the couch. They show large people, often older or of polynesian descent (genetically more at risk of developing type 2), walking on the beach, swinging their children around, and other evryday activities. It encourages "just 30min a day" of physical activity will improve your health.

It worked for me in the early stages of the campaign - I thought exercise meant putting on leotards and joining a gym (shudder....) and then the ads said get off the couch. So I did! I congratulate myself for every bit of exercise I do and don't beat myself up that I am not exercising 7 days a week.

I'm still female, fat and forty - the perfect combination to be at risk of type 2 - but I eat healthier and exercise often. The shock tactics would not have worked for me because all you see is (seemingly) inevitable damage with no explanation of what you can do to prevent being in those horrible pictures.
Brook
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Fif » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:29 am

I dislike the ad as I don't think it's productive, as others have said, a campaign highlighting the differences between t1 and t2 etc would be far more effective than simple shock tactics!
They say hard work doesn't hurt you - I say why take the risk! - R Reagan
Fif
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Melb

Postby Stuart » Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:19 pm

when I first started watching the adds on TV I thought it was some new virus or something.

There's been adds by a bgl monitor company as well... can't remember which one, maybe they funded part of it or maybe they just took the oportunity.

I've had D my whole life and this type of stuff comes along every now and then and I have mixed feelings. I know that it will scare the sh*t out of a friend of mine who is showing symptoms of type 2 D but refuses to see a doctor. I have managed to scare him sufficiently to look at his lifestyle but hopefully the ads will get him to a doctor. On the other hand a collegue has kid who recently got D and is in primary school, imagine the affect the adds are going to have. When I was young my Mum was told by the endo/educator that going to an adult Diabetes clinic would be destressing because I would see people with amputations ect. To this day I remain disappointed that I have not seen a single one. I know these ads are going to lead to another round of questions comments from friends etc about me and D. The last time this happened a very drunk friend of mine absolutely went beseark at me for not looking after myself(hba1c 5.7 by the way) It turns out that a guy he works with was diagnosed with some complications and was quite upset by it all.

The workshops that were run at Sydney Uni with the med students that some of us went to discussed the use of scare tactics as a mechanism to get people to "comply". I think that most of the students saw it as a valid mechanism.
Stuart
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:14 pm
Location: Melbourne/Sydney

Postby Kate » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:32 pm

Brook wrote:On a more positive note, the ads showing in NZ are encouraging and helpful for helping to prevent type 2 by increasing exercise.


That sounds great Brook. Has anyone else seen Type 2 Prevention/Diagnosis campaign that haven't used scare tactics but have been effective without terrifying small children etc ?
Kate
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby Jacqueline » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:17 pm

Brook wrote:On a more positive note, the ads showing in NZ are encouraging and helpful for helping to prevent type 2 by increasing exercise.


I haven't seen any actual DNZ ads on TV for ages, though. You just mean general ones, right? Like the 'push play' and new 'activator' ads that are promoted by SPARC (not specifically D related, but still tageting T2's among others)? Or have I been missing DNZ ads, in my usual dopey state of being? (Highly likely, the only ones I even remember are the ones with the ugly yellow backround and no mention of more than 1 type of D, from last years awareness week, and at least one that raved about D being preventable. Ick.)
http://www.sparc.org.nz/ <---'Sport and recreation' NZ. Piggy-walking ad people (See my last mental rambling paragraph! LOL!)

Brook wrote:The "Push Play" and "Move your body" ads are encouraging people to be more active.


*Confusing myself straining to remember things* I think I thought they were from the same or consecutive series of ads/campaigns? Man, I must be slow! LOL! Who actually did the 'move...' ads, do you remember? I'm so confused, I think I've kinda rolled em all into one!

Brook wrote:It worked for me in the early stages of the campaign - I thought exercise meant putting on leotards and joining a gym (shudder....) and then the ads said get off the couch. So I did!


That is very cool! Good on ya Brook! Yay! I'm so pleased to hear those ads did good! Sadly, they had no effect on me, other than the one with the guy walking his pig... I love that shot! Classic! I'm sure I work off at least a sniff of an empty timtam packet by rolling around laughing at the gorgeous piggy on a lead! I love your description of exercise, too! Image Very cool!
Jacqueline
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:28 am
Location: New Zealand

The carrot, the needle, and the pat on the back

Postby Lyle » Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:24 am

I think there is something to be said for approaching the public health policy from several directions. I think it's amazing that changing public behavior can have such a benefit to society but what is the best way?

1) Scaring people with needles and complications serves several purposes:
1.1 Scaring borderline T2 people to get medical help
1.2 Making family and friends aware of the seriousness. For example, folks who insist on serving their families fatty and sugary and generally unhealthy meals.
1.3 Raise public awareness of the need to continue research and funding for treatment and cures. If you want to get Lantus from the government, the people and officials have to understand the seriousness of poor control the benefit of investing in better control methods.

2) Getting people to a doctor or dietician or health care provider who can the offer support (pats) and nutritional guidance (carrots), like learning to count carbs or understanding low GI diet benefits.

3) Scary adverts don't mean scary doctors and support people. They will treat patients pretty much the same as they always have.

Yes is stinks to actually have the disease and listen to the scary warnings but the Diabetic fundraising letters do that just as much. One of my first solicitation letters I got after diagnosis was a scare letter for the ADA going on and on about all the retched complications and costs and how they really needed my money. Indeed.

As far as differentiating T1 and T2, I've all but given up. Perhaps the threat of needles will encourage some people to avoid T2 or at least better manage it.
Lyle
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:17 am
Location: BTV USA

Postby Barb » Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:57 am

I'm having to be very good and not type out lots of swear words and try not to bash my computer, but this campaign has my FUMING!!!! I'm not going to get into the 'Type I is worse than Type II' and vice versa story, but I think those pictures and the whole wording of the web page is bloody awful. The person who created it should be publicly bashed by all diabetics....

It's like a campaign saying "This is what happens when you take heroin" with some smackhead out of their face or dead on the floor. Except we don't choose to have diabetes (and this goes for the Type IIs that might not have had it in their families, and were healthy living), but that's what that campaign to me is trying to say.

I'm so angry, I'm off for a fag (ahem, another one for their posters)


Barb :)
"When life hands you lemons, ask for tequila and salt!".....
Barb
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:17 pm
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom

Postby Brook » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:32 am

Jacqueline, I think you are right and it wasn't actually D NZ that did the ads. I think the point is that showing large people "moving their bodies" and walking pigs etc has an indirect result for those at risk of type 2 because their lifestyle might change and therefore prevent them getting diabetes.

Focusing on what the public can do to prevent type 2 (or regular checks to pick up on it) is more helpful than scary photos of complications.

Maybe DNZ should follow the "push play" and "move your body" ads with endorsement of better lifestyle choices.
Brook
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Jacqueline » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:57 am

Brook wrote:Maybe DNZ should follow the "push play" and "move your body" ads with endorsement of better lifestyle choices.


Exactly! :) They don't really do many ads (or rather any that I've noticed, like I said, maybe I'm missing some! LOL!), but the ones they have done haven't been great, IMO. I'd like to see them promote D concepts in a posistive active way, and also address the invisible T1 phoenomenon (even if it's by refering to T2 as T2 diabetes, not just as DIRE-betes).

Also, excuse my slightly addle-brained last post, I was a tad over tired when i wrote it, I know it doesn't make complete sense! LOL!

I keep looking for the gorgeous piggy from the ad, to post him, but he doesn't seem to be easy to find o/l anywhere. :(
Jacqueline
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Annoyed with diabetes Aust campaign

Postby keenas » Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:26 pm

"Scare" tactics are often used in advertising, as a key motivator to get action is fear...personally where diabetes is concerned, I don't think this works. Also, shouldn't Diabetes Australia be working for their existing members as a priority? It should be the government and health department priority to identify undiagnosed diabetes to prevent escalating health costs.
keenas
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:19 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Diana » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:03 pm

oh god, this campaign is everywhere... i open up this months 'conquest'... there it is... i walk into COLES... there it is... I turn on the TV... you get the idea. I had one of the girls from my work ask me what i thought about it and i told her it was a very hot topic at the moment... But the other thing i would like to bring up about it is that diabetes is a very rapidly evolving disease... and treatment these days is so much better than it was 30 or 40 years ago. So if you were to take someone today who has had diabetes for 30 years, and then take me when i get to having had it for 30 years, im sure there will be some pretty big differences in our overall health. When i was diagnosed the normal treatment was 2 shots per day. Nowdays you will find only a very small amount of people with T1 using less than 4 shots per day. Our monitors are better, we know more about healthy diets... you cant tell me that serious complication like those shown on this campaign will be anywhere near as common in the future. If theres one thing good we can say about this campaign, at least it does mention 'type two', unlike so many others. But i disagree with the use of shock tactics. But i can understand why it is focusing on T2... after all, while T2 is only to some degree preventable, T1 is not at all. So as much as i would love to see some kind of 'myth busting about T1' ad, there really is very little point on a public health point of view.
Diana
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Perth Australia

Postby Kate » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:45 pm

Absolutely Diana ... when I used to speak to mums of newly-diagnosed kids who were beside themselves at the diagnosis in my last job, the massive improvements in treatments in my d-life time and the hope that they will continue to improve was something they found very comforting. And you're right, statistics re morbidity of diabetes are out-dated by their very nature, ie they are long-term stats.

Sorry to hear that you're being confronted at every turn ... K
Kate
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby shadowlandr » Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:41 pm

Bruno wrote:Losing limbs is (in chess parlance) an end game scenario. The kind of person who will ignore this kind of ultimatum is also the kind of person who eventually ends up losing limbs etc. Their damage is already as good as done.

People who can be convinced to change can usually be convinced easily. These are the sort of people who will probably never reach these end game scenarios, because they will make at least some or the necessary changes.


i agree with you partially, bruno, but i see a couple of problems here:

1) the thing regarding those who WILL ignore this type of ultimatum is that we don't know what is going on in their heads (as if we knew what was going on in ANYONE'S head =P). in other words, for those who are obstinately clinging on to their poor lifestyle habits, we don't know what the extent is that we must go to to turn them back. that is, we don't know until we try. and for the one who does heed the graphic warnings and turn back (and i'm sure there are many more than just one), would not the advertisers and the 'saved' person himself not say that that one person's rescue from such a fate was worth it? it's not like these were made-up pictures-- this actually happened to someone, or someone's mom, or someone's sister or son or dad. these guys didn't get these pictures from nowhere-- more than likely they might have been volunteered by families, loved ones, even the amputee or victim of such things himself. these people, if they had been able to see what would happen to them, would likely have turned to better ways-- and they likely think that the same will go for someone else as well. there's always someone out there whom this will help, and they're desperate to find that one. we have to remember that these pictures are pictures of people.

2) regarding those whose minds are changed and the easy nature of their changing-- not necessarily. certainly not if i'm any example. people are set in their habits for inexplicable reasons, just try to shift 'em and you'll see just how defensively stuck they are. ask anyone who's converted to a different diet, religion, political party, car or cola brand, anything that involves a mixture of prefence, choice and habit, and you'll get a story of how that change was not an easy one. many people are affected by positive attractions, to be sure-- which is an argument for the positive ads-- but there are positives to everything in life, including munching twinkies on a couch. humans are as much motivated by fear of pain as they are by attraction to pleasure and must be pushed as well as pulled, and inertia is a tremendous thing to overcome. different things apply to and attract/repel different people of course.


i feel terribly for the six-year-olds and newly diagnosed who are terrified by this ad; i also feel terribly for those whose photos and plights inspired it. i'm not there, so i don't know what has been shown on your televisions, but if this is primarily an internet ad then i would keep in mind the people whom it targets. if i were the mother of someone who risked this terrible fate then i would be very happy that these ads inspired him or her to change ways; likewise, if i were one of the people that this happened to, i would probably have wished a thousand times in my first day post-op that someone had shown such ads to me. this is probably their motivation more than anything else.

it's also another reminder to ourselves that we're not as tough and insensitive as we think and maybe we should monitor the kinds of things that we/our kids look at, if we are likely to be offended by something that is targeted to a certain audience and that contains potentially offensive material. i've gone into movies more times than i care to count and come out disgusted by their content, only to be told that i am obviously not the audience that is targeted by such things-- and that's for entertainment purposes, not the public health! if you or your loved one was scared by this ad, it is a prime opportunity to go on a fact-and-info-finding mission and inform yourselves-- which was probably ANOTHER primary motivation of these ads. they care less about your guilt or your nightmares than they do that this doesn't happen to you; if you don't fall into the category that it would happen to, then you would be advised to simply ignore it.

that's the problem with the human race-- we have to do everything with "blankets." it seems a great approach until you get under the "blanket" yourself, then you suddenly remember that everyone is an individual, until you come up with another blanket solution for something else that is =). point is, there are obviously merits to both approaches. the only way to keep from going nuts is to remember that these folks are not doing it to target you personally =)

becky =)

who will probably go and get pissed off at something else in a day or two and go and contradict SOMETHING she wrote in this incredibly long tome =)
"Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation."
shadowlandr
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: tidewater, virginia, USA

Postby Bruno » Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:54 pm

Having seen the ads on tv for the last week or so, I think my attitude is softening towards them. They're not so shocking after ten viewings, and the non-D's around me were even less moved by them.

What the heck, if they save lives then who am I to argue. They may even save the hospital system a few million quid in the process.

Type 1's will always need to do some sort of explaining, after all we're the exception not the rule, statistically speaking. So I'll just have to have my trusty "no, it's not your grandmother's diabetes..." one-liner at the ready a little more often from now on. And bolus for yet another slice of humble pie... sigh...
{'*'}
Bruno
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Mel » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:13 pm

Hmm that's all good and well about them saving lives I am worried about their negativity costing lives..........

bruno where did you see these ads-I must say I haven't seen them anywhere except in COnquest and this website which bloody well annoys me. The shock value is of no benefit to those of us who already have diabetes adn I propose they do more harm than good-if they are to save any lives and money they need to reach the audience who don't know that diabetes is serious and this audience doesnt' read Conquest or participate in diabetes debates grrrr. Talk about a campaign achieving the worst of all worlds. :(
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Jase » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:04 pm

Their new campaign could show the other bad side of diabetes, like, the camera could be moving down the street, and people would be jumping out at you left and right asking you whether or not you should be eating that, or why dont you use the pills because they would hate to inject, and other people telling you how their grandma had diabetes and so they know all about the condition
Jase
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby Kate » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:53 pm

Has anyone had any further thoughts about responding to this campaign? There's a lot of people in this thread very upset - have you been writing letters to tell people what you've told us here?
Kate
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby Be11ydancer » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:51 pm

Hi Kate,
I posted a request for an RC letter writing campaign on the 12th July. I have written my thoughts down and have them ready to mail I was wondering if anybody else was going to do the same thing. My main concern is for the newly diagnosed who are already doing it hard emotionally. They need gentle reaasurances and accurate info on how to deal- not scare tactics. I have already been food nazi/ bullied as a direct result of this campaign- and I made my GP promise never to put up those posters. I can't believe that DA have okayed this. I am just thankful that the NSW branch has enough sense to ignore the campagn.
Dance like it hurts. Love like you need money. Work when people are watching.
Be11ydancer
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:47 am
Location: Penruff Sydney

Postby miss_behave » Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:16 pm

I'm 15, and I am also annoyed by the ad campaign, so i sent an email to diabetes australia. I got this letter in response, they basically ignored what i wrote to them and instead babbled on about how the ads are targeted at type 2 diabetes.

<snip>
Thank you for your feedback on the Don't Ignore Diabetes campaign (by e-mail)

This campaign is not directed at people like yourself with Type 1 diabetes who already understand that diabetes is a serious condition.

The campaign is targeting the epidemic of Type 2 diabetes in adult Australians (over 30 years) who are either some of the 600,000 Australians who have Type 2 diabetes but don't know it, or the 2 million Australians at risk with prediabetes. The voice-over for the TV ad clearly says “If you’re over 30, overweight, and don’t get enough exercise…..”

The campaign has been developed over three years with involvement of experts who have developed other major disease prevention public campaigns. The advertisement and images were tested on the public and with people with diabetes and with parents of children with diabetes. The results of this testing indicated that, while parents and people with diabetes thought the advertisement and images were graphic and strong, they also understood that the public needs to know the seriousness of diabetes. Parents indicated that unintended effects on their children could be managed by them directly...... blah blah blah (it goes on an on about it)

Yours sincerely,
Greg Johnson
Executive Sponsor – National Diabetes Action Program

<snip>
miss_behave
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:10 pm
Location: Perth

Postby George » Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:07 pm

Obesity and undetected type 2 diabetes is a problem. There is no evidence to show that photos of surgery and amputated feet are going to stop people from eating too much mayonnaise or fried food.

There is evidence to show that these campaigns cause significant levels of anxiety and depression in people already living with these conditions.

I think it is likely that this campaign is more likely to take lives than save them.

Australia's major impactors on the health care budget include chronic illness, especially diabetes, and also heart disease, blood pressure, and cholesterol. If the government were truly serious about sustainable responses to these epidemics they would ban fast food joints from advertising themselves as healthy, and insist that any manufacturer printing "fat free" or "X% fat free" on their products should also have to stamp "fat free does not mean good for you. Fat free will not make you loose weight. Reduced fat often means increased carboydrate which can increase your weight"

And then spend that millions that they wasted on that ad on fitness programs for overweight people. If you want people to make (radical) changes to their behaviour you need to scaffold positive health messages by giving people the skills and abilities to actively enact change. Simply scaring them will only get their attention for a few minutes until the buy their next berlina bun.
George
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:37 pm
Location: Adelaide

Postby Bruno » Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:10 am

George wrote:If the government were truly serious about sustainable responses to these epidemics they would ban fast food joints from advertising themselves as healthy, and insist that any manufacturer printing "fat free" or "X% fat free" on their products should also have to stamp "fat free does not mean good for you. Fat free will not make you loose weight. Reduced fat often means increased carboydrate which can increase your weight"

Sadly I think that many Australians would still have some trouble comprehending this mildly complex equation, and would choose to simply ignore it too. But it's totally correct ,and excellent advice should anyone care to actually listen to it.

George wrote:If you want people to make (radical) changes to their behaviour you need to scaffold positive health messages by giving people the skills and abilities to actively enact change. Simply scaring them will only get their attention for a few minutes until the buy their next berlina bun.

A great example is the "eat two fruits and five veges every day" ad campaign which encouragingly states "hey you're halfway there already!"
DA could learn a lot from that campaign, which is specifically aimed at winning converts en masse...
{'*'}
Bruno
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Mel » Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:35 pm

Hey Miss Be-have good on your for writing/emailing DA.

I'd be interested in what they have to say about consulting people with diabetes-there was a whole lot of bumf on the website about focus testing but it specifically excluded people with d, I would like to know what sort of testing they did with people with d-I can't believe people with diabetes would think it was a good idea. If you could be bothered I'd love to see the rest of the letter, are you able to scan and email it or something?

melinda@realitycheck.org.au
Mel
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Sydney


Return to Solid Gold - Some of our Favourites!

cron