# Tesco diabetes leaflet



## Lizzie (Jun 7, 2010)

Hi all

I saw this diabetes leaflet in Tesco the other day. What do you all make of it? I thought it was far too simplistic, did not differentiate between the different types of diabetes, and the explanation of diabetes ("a condition which can result in higher than normal levels of glucose in your blood") is poor. Is it worth writing to them or am I taking things too seriously?


----------



## shiv (Jun 7, 2010)

If you feel strongly about it, do it!

I'll write an email later on.


----------



## SilentAssassin1642 (Jun 7, 2010)

I would totally write to them! I've not seen the leaflet, but I may email them too


----------



## shiv (Jun 7, 2010)

SilentAssassin1642 said:


> I would totally write to them! I've not seen the leaflet, but I may email them too



There's a link in the original post!


----------



## SilentAssassin1642 (Jun 7, 2010)

shiv said:


> If you feel strongly about it, do it!
> 
> I'll write an email later on.



great minds


----------



## SilentAssassin1642 (Jun 7, 2010)

shiv said:


> There's a link in the original post!



Got it  Strongly worded, but fairly put, email coming later on


----------



## Andy HB (Jun 7, 2010)

I don't see that this leaflet is a problem.

It isn't meant for people who know about diabetes. It needs to be simplistic to get an 'ordinary' member of the public to think "yes, I have been peeing a lot recently" (or whatever) and then go for a blood glucose check.

At the point of getting this blood glucose check, it is irrelevent what type of diabetes is involved.

I also don't see a problem with the description of diabetes ("a condition which can result in higher than normal levels of glucose in the blood"). In undiagnosed diabetics (whether type 1 or type 2), that is precisely what happens.

Or, have I misunderstood your objections? 

Andy


----------



## Northerner (Jun 7, 2010)

Personally, I think it's OK. Including any extra information about types isn't really necessary - the symptoms in the questionnaire are similar, and they're just going to give you a fingerprick test then (if thought necessary) advise you to see your doctor, which is when the more detailed explanation could be given. They're targeting 'undiagnosed' diabetics, who would tend to be LADA/Type 2 as the onset may have been very slow and put down to other things (as I did for two years).


----------



## aymes (Jun 7, 2010)

I don't really have any objections to it. If it's intention is to encourage people who may have symptoms of diabetes to have a test then it does it's job with no more information than is needed. If it was meant to be an educational leaflet on diabetes then yes it would be inadequate but as far as I can tell it's just about the test service.
It's quite similar to the one I filled in at Lloyds pharmacy when I had a finger prick test because I was worried about symptoms, to be honest that was all the information I needed at that point.


----------



## Lizzie (Jun 7, 2010)

Hmm. Mixed opinions. I kind of see where those of you who say its Ok are coming from, that's why I asked here instead of writing to them immediately. I guess it shouldn't be too detailed so that the average person can understand it. But I think the leaflet might be improved if it was a little more educational, especially since it is displayed in one of the Uk's biggest supermarkets so lots of people will see and read it.

They already split things into 'symptoms' and 'risks' on the back which roughly seem to be type 1 and 2 anyway, so I can't really see a good reason not to just put the types there instead of those random headings. Calling them risks and symptoms seems confusing to me, I don't really understand what they mean by those terms - I would have thought of the risks of diabetes as the complications, and I would have classed the things under both headings as symptoms. 

As for the explanation, diabetes can also result in lower than normal levels of glucose, so saying it can result in higher levels isn't really giving the full picture. I would say something like fluctuating levels instead and also explain these levels can be controlled by insulin, various drugs or diet or some combination of these treatments.


----------



## jax (Jun 7, 2010)

Hmmm.. that’s a tricky one.. I can’t say I am particularly bothered… and I’m normally up in arms any time there are descriptions of diabetes which tells people incorrectly what living with all diabetes is like and when it is often nothing like reality and give no differentiation types and treatments…  but this isn’t really about that…. This is about telling people about the risks and/or symptoms of diabetes to get tested. And that’s clearly a good thing.

The only statement that kinda annoys me is: *‘Once diagnosed diabetes can be immediately, and effectively, controlled with small lifestyle changes, or medication where necessary’. *

But again, that’s probably because its making statements about what living with diabetes is like … and well.. for me at least, the lifestyle changes are not small… and the statement gives fuel to the notion that diabetes is a no problem disease, and it takes little or no effort to look after it.  

And its true, ‘medication where necessary’, no not every one does need it, but its not really a clear representation for those who are ‘medicated’, and can have very intensive, demanding and complex regimes. And even with the most intensive of insulin management, I don’t feel it is always so easily ‘immediately’ or  ‘effectively controlled’ as implied. (Also, for type 1, ‘medication where necessary’, does'nt make much sense). I know they’re not trying to scare people… but its kinda gives out a strange message…

But thats one sentance... overall i think the leaflet is doing the job


----------



## wallycorker (Jun 7, 2010)

Do it Lizzie!

In general, I'm a fan of Tesco and their approach to things but we can't expect them to always get things right - first time anyway.

I'm a big believer that we ought to be telling these organisations what we think. All of us!

Best wishes - John


----------



## am64 (Jun 7, 2010)

im more concerned that i calls it  'our *free* diabetic screening service' ....isnt it always free ..unless you choose to have private docs ??
remember tho " every little helps" (increase tescos strangle hold?)


----------



## Northerner (Jun 7, 2010)

am64 said:


> im more concerned that i calls it  'our *free* diabetic screening service' ....isnt it always free ..unless you choose to have private docs ??
> remember tho " every little helps" (increase tescos strangle hold?)



I suppose it's an opportunity to have the test whilst you're out shopping and not have to bother booking a GP appointment (although it does say you might have to book the test with them!). People might be more inclined to have the test on the spur of the moment.


----------



## am64 (Jun 7, 2010)

Northerner said:


> I suppose it's an opportunity to have the test whilst you're out shopping and not have to bother booking a GP appointment (although it does say you might have to book the test with them!). People might be more inclined to have the test on the spur of the moment.



i agree thats why they are trying to catch 'em quick ...then sell 'em a meter/strips ???


----------



## wallycorker (Jun 8, 2010)

I don't think that it's misleading that Tesco say that it's free. After all we don't go into supermarkets and expect to receive anything for nothing do we?

Moreover, I'm not certain as to whether all GP practices would necessarily test patients at random without there being some underlying symptoms. 

I suspect that all that Teso are looking to do is to detect more people who are suffering from diabetes earlier than might happen in the normal course of events. In doing that, it is likely that their pharmacy business will benefit by  an increase in their NHS prescription business.

In general, I think that it's a good thing that Tesco or any other organisation for that matter sets about trying to diagnose diabetes earlier than the NHS tends to do.


----------



## Tezzz (Jun 8, 2010)

Thanks for the post Jax.

The leaflet is at *http://www.tesco.com/assets/health/content/documents/Pharmacy/01736_Diabetes_V1%5B3%5D.pdf *if nobody spotted the link in the first post.

The leaflet is sponsored by *Accu-Chek*.

Roche make Accu-Chek meters and test strips.

I wonder if Roche must be providing the meters and strips to Tesco for free in the hope of more people needing to have to use their products?

I think the important thing to remember is that the leaflet is not out  to scare people from having the finger prick test.

My attitude is that if something is dealt with early enough then the outcome won't be as bad if left to get worse to the point of no return.


----------



## Caroline (Jun 8, 2010)

The leaflet is very simple, I think they want to catch as many people as possible. It is good they are raising awareness, but I think the advice should be to visit your GP rtaher than go back to them if there is any chance you have diabetes. Your GP has access to your medical records and can ask for more detailed tests to be done as well.

I know a few people who worry about everything, they only have to get a little spot and they have something serious. These people need more reassurance than a little prick in the finger and told to come back again in six weeks.


----------



## Andy HB (Jun 8, 2010)

Lizzie said:


> As for the explanation, diabetes can also result in lower than normal levels of glucose, so saying it can result in higher levels isn't really giving the full picture.



I've been meaning to ask this question, but have been out and about so haven't had the time up to now.

It is my understanding that untreated diabetes can only result in increased blood sugar levels. The low blood sugar levels only occur because of the medication (be it insulin or something else, such as gliclazide).

Is my understanding correct?

Andy


----------



## Northerner (Jun 8, 2010)

Andy HB said:


> I've been meaning to ask this question, but have been out and about so haven't had the time up to now.
> 
> It is my understanding that untreated diabetes can only result in increased blood sugar levels. The low blood sugar levels only occur because of the medication (be it insulin or something else, such as gliclazide).
> 
> ...



It is possible to have something called 'reactive hypoglycaemia', where the pancreas overreacts to an increase in glucose and puts out more insulin than is required to bring the level back to normal, with a subsequent drop below normal. I believe that, for an untreated Type 2 where levels are swinging, the pancreas can lose the fine control necessary. (Put in my half-remembered layman non-doctor terms!)


----------



## Andy HB (Jun 8, 2010)

Northerner said:


> It is possible to have something called 'reactive hypoglycaemia', where the pancreas overreacts to an increase in glucose and puts out more insulin than is required to bring the level back to normal, with a subsequent drop below normal. I believe that, for an untreated Type 2 where levels are swinging, the pancreas can lose the fine control necessary. (Put in my half-remembered layman non-doctor terms!)



Thanks. That's the bit I was missing!


----------



## MrsSharpwaa (Jun 8, 2010)

As a non diabetic (although there is family history) I found the leaflet simple and easy to understand. If the aim is to raise awareness then I think they have it just about right. Technical jargon is a sure fire way of deterring people from proceding any further than the first paragraph. Whilst many on the forum have detailed knowledge of their diabetes that knowledge level does not extend to the general public so I think it would be unreasonable to expect them to be receptive to information beyond the basic.


----------

