Rural self-reliance: the impact on health experiences of people living with type II diabetes in rural Queensland, Australia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to explore whether and how rural culture influences type II diabetes management and to better understand the social processes that rural people construct in coping with diabetes and its complications. In particular, the study aimed to analyse the interface and interactions between rural people with type II diabetes and the Australian health care system, and to develop a theoretical understanding that reflects constructs that may be more broadly applicable.

METHODS

The study applied constructivist grounded theory methods within an interpretive interactionist framework. Data from 39 semi-structured interviews with rural and urban type II diabetes patients and a mix of rural health care providers were analysed to develop a theoretical understanding of the social processes that define diabetes management in that context.

RESULTS

The analysis suggests that although type II diabetes imposes limitations that require adjustment and adaptation, these processes are actively negotiated by rural people within the environmental context to fit the salient social understandings of autonomy and self-reliance. Thus, people normalized self-reliant diabetes management behaviours because this was congruent with the rural culture. Factors that informed the actions of normalization were relationships between participants and health care professionals, support, and access to individual resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings point to ways in which rural self-reliance is conceived as the primary strategy of diabetes management. People face the paradox of engaging with a health care system that at the same time maximizes individual responsibility for health and minimizes the social support by which individuals manage the condition. The emphasis on self-reliance gives some legitimacy to a lack of prevention and chronic care services. Success of diabetes management behaviours is, however, contingent on relative resources. Where there is good primary care, there develops a number of downstream effects including a sense of empowerment to manage difficult rural environmental circumstances. This has particular bearing on health outcomes for people with fewer resources.