Characterization of factors affecting attainment of glycemic control in Asian Americans with diabetes in a culturally specific program

Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management Interventions Among Asian Americans in the United States: A Scoping Review

Introduction:

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the leading causes of death among Asian Americans. Despite being a culturally diverse racial group with differences in history, language, religion, and values, Asian Americans are often viewed as a monolith. With the high prevalence rate of T2D, a careful examination of self-management interventions across Asian Americans is needed to develop effective and culturally sensitive interventions.

Objective:

To describe existing literature by examining study characteristics, different intervention components, and outcome measures of various T2D interventions among Asian Americans.

Methods:

Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework to ground this review, six online databases were used to identify studies.

Results:

A total of 18 publications were included. Thirteen studies were published after 2013, with 44% and 22% of these studies focused on Chinese Americans and Korean Americans. We found a lack of geographic diversity in the location of the studies. Majority of the participants were females. Most of the interventions were implemented in person. Licensed health care providers were the most common interventionists, with a number of studies using community health workers. Outcome measures focused on three key areas: physiological, psychosocial and behavioral, and program-related outcomes. Many of the studies measured changes in HbA1C, self-efficacy, distress, depression, and quality of life. Overall, we saw improvements in physiological measures in most of the studies. For example, majority of the studies showed a decline in the participants' HbA1C. Most studies showed an increase or improvement in healthy behaviors. Studies that measured efficacy, knowledge, attitude, motivation, quality of life, or general health showed improvement from baseline. All the studies that measured distress or depression showed a reduction of symptoms postintervention.

Conclusion:

Overall, we found that culturally tailored interventions that focus on specific Asian American subpopulations saw an improvement in physiological, psychosocial, or behavioral measures. There were several gaps in the existing T2D self-management programs or interventions among Asian Americans studied in the United States. Based on our analysis, we recommend when designing or implementing self-management interventions among Asian Americans, considerations should be made for targeted recruitment for understudied Asian American subgroups, gender, and location.

Diabetes Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Care in Asian American and Pacific Islanders of Texas: Data From the 2015-2019 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the health status and needs of the Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) population with diabetes in Texas.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional secondary analysis of data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System in Texas from 2015 to 2019 for non-Hispanic White (NHW) and AAPI adults.

RESULTS

Although the overall crude diabetes prevalence was lower in AAPI adults, age-adjusted diabetes prevalence was higher than in NHWs. Significant risk factors associated with diabetes in the AAPI group included being male, marital status, lower education levels, lower income, being overweight/obese, and having a sedentary lifestyle. Engagement in self-management activities (checking blood glucose, checking feet, attending a diabetes management course) was lower in AAPIs than in NHWs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given stiff barriers to adequate screening and self-management support in diabetes care among ethnic populations such as AAPIs, targeted efforts to improve diabetes screening and effective care are warranted. Because today's AAPI populations are predominantly first-generation immigrant groups who suffer from language barriers, efforts should be made to develop health surveys in multiple languages for wider inclusion of understudied groups like AAPIs in diabetes-related research.

Self-reported cultural competency measures among patients with diabetes: A nationwide cross-sectional study in the United States

Background

Culturally tailored interventions may reduce disparities in diabetes care. We conducted a nationally representative assessment of self-reported cultural competency measures of care among patients with diabetes in the United States.

Methods

The 2017 National Health Interview Survey was queried for adults with self-reported diabetes. Sample weight-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions defined adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of a positive response to each of the cultural competency measures while controlling for relevant sociodemographic variables.

Findings

2,448 adults were included in the analyses. Black, Latinx, and Asian respondents had greater odds of and individuals with the highest income level had lower odds of placing greater importance in sharing cultures with their provider. Black and Latinx individuals had lower odds of reporting encountering providers who shared or understood their cultures. Asians had lower odds of and respondents aged 40-64 and 65 years and older had greater odds of reporting frequently being treated with respect by their providers. Non-English speakers had lower odds of and individuals from higher income brackets had greater odds of reporting frequently receiving easy-to-understand information about their care. Blacks and respondents not part of the workforce had greater odds of reporting frequently being asked about their opinions or beliefs in care.

Interpretation

Disparities in self-reported provider cultural competency measures exist among cultural minorities in the United States. Our findings may inform efforts to reduce disparities and improve care among minorities with diabetes.

Funding

No funding was used in the preparation of this work.

Combining Nonclinical Determinants of Health and Clinical Data for Research and Evaluation: Rapid Review

Background

Nonclinical determinants of health are of increasing importance to health care delivery and health policy. Concurrent with growing interest in better addressing patients’ nonmedical issues is the exponential growth in availability of data sources that provide insight into these nonclinical determinants of health.

Objective

This review aimed to characterize the state of the existing literature on the use of nonclinical health indicators in conjunction with clinical data sources.

Methods

We conducted a rapid review of articles and relevant agency publications published in English. Eligible studies described the effect of, the methods for, or the need for combining nonclinical data with clinical data and were published in the United States between January 2010 and April 2018. Additional reports were obtained by manual searching. Records were screened for inclusion in 2 rounds by 4 trained reviewers with interrater reliability checks. From each article, we abstracted the measures, data sources, and level of measurement (individual or aggregate) for each nonclinical determinant of health reported.

Results

A total of 178 articles were included in the review. The articles collectively reported on 744 different nonclinical determinants of health measures. Measures related to socioeconomic status and material conditions were most prevalent (included in 90% of articles), followed by the closely related domain of social circumstances (included in 25% of articles), reflecting the widespread availability and use of standard demographic measures such as household income, marital status, education, race, and ethnicity in public health surveillance. Measures related to health-related behaviors (eg, smoking, diet, tobacco, and substance abuse), the built environment (eg, transportation, sidewalks, and buildings), natural environment (eg, air quality and pollution), and health services and conditions (eg, provider of care supply, utilization, and disease prevalence) were less common, whereas measures related to public policies were rare. When combining nonclinical and clinical data, a majority of studies associated aggregate, area-level nonclinical measures with individual-level clinical data by matching geographical location.

Conclusions

A variety of nonclinical determinants of health measures have been widely but unevenly used in conjunction with clinical data to support population health research.