ArticlePloS one2026
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK press: A diachronic corpus-based analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
News coverage of diabetes has been observed to promote diabetes stigma of both Type 1 (T1D) and Type 2 (T2D) diabetes, and to foreground individual responsibility over health outcomes. Adopting a corpus-based approach to discourse analysis, this study examines trends in media reporting around T1D and T2D in mainstream UK news media between 2020-2024. We consider: the linguistic representation of T1D/T2D; whether news reports include representations that could promote misunderstandings of T1D/T2D and contribute to perpetuating stigma; and whether language use aligns with recommendations in guidelines on diabetes communication. UK news coverage of T1D/T2D adopts medical and free will discourses while omitting references to social determinants of health (SDH) that can condition development and management of health conditions. While the medical discourse can help mitigate stigma, omitting references to SDH foregrounds individual agency and responsibility in adopting health-preventive behaviours while overlooking inequalities that may contribute to develop T2D or interfere with T1D/T2D management. Language recommended by the guidelines is increasingly adopted, but reduction in dispreferred language is less marked. References to diabetes 'in general', and references to diabetes in close context with unrelated conditions are common, leading to potential misunderstandings. Recommendations to improve communication include continuing the use of language recommended in diabetes guidelines and reducing uses of dispreferred language; referring to diabetes types to prevent misunderstandings; and taking special care when referring to other conditions to avoid inaccurate inferences of causality or similarity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.