Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(4): 1052-1059, 2020 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31919724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Effective type 2 diabetes care remains a challenge for patients including those receiving primary care in safety net settings. OBJECTIVE: The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) trial team and leaders from a regional department of health evaluated approaches to improve care for vulnerable patients. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes seeking care across 10 unblinded, randomly assigned safety net clinics in Middle TN. INTERVENTIONS: A literacy-sensitive, provider-focused, health communication intervention (PRIDE; 5 clinics) vs. standard diabetes education (5 clinics). MAIN MEASURES: Participant-level primary outcome was glycemic control [A1c] at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included select health behaviors and psychosocial aspects of care at 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to examine the comparative effectiveness of each approach to care. KEY RESULTS: Of 410 patients enrolled, 364 (89%) were included in analyses. Median age was 51 years; Black and Hispanic patients represented 18% and 25%; 96% were uninsured, and 82% had low annual income level (< $20,000); adequate health literacy was seen in 83%, but numeracy deficits were common. At 12 months, significant within-group treatment effects occurred from baseline for both PRIDE and control sites: adjusted A1c (- 0.76 [95% CI, - 1.08 to - 0.44]; P < .001 vs - 0.54 [95% CI, - 0.86 to - 0.21]; P = .001), odds of poor eating (0.53 [95% CI, 0.33-0.83]; P = .01 vs 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68]; P < .001), treatment satisfaction (3.93 [95% CI, 2.48-6.21]; P < .001 vs 3.04 [95% CI, 1.93-4.77]; P < .001), and self-efficacy (2.97 [95% CI, 1.89-4.67]; P < .001 vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.1-2.84]; P = .01). No significant difference was observed between study arms in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions improved the participant's A1c and behavioral outcomes. PRIDE was not more effective than standard education. Further research may elucidate the added value of a focused health communication program in this setting.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Health Communication , Health Literacy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Health Behavior , Humans , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care
2.
J Health Commun ; 21(sup2): 127-134, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27662442

ABSTRACT

Patient-provider communication is modifiable and is linked to diabetes outcomes. The association of communication quality with medical mistrust is unknown. We examined these factors within the context of a low-literacy/numeracy-focused intervention to improve diabetes care, using baseline data from diverse patients enrolled in a randomized trial of a health communication intervention. Demographics, measures of health communication (Communication Assessment Tool [CAT], Interpersonal Processes of Care survey [IPC-18]), health literacy (Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults), depression, medical mistrust, and glycemic control were ascertained. Adjusted proportional odds models were used to test the association of mistrust with patient-reported communication quality. The interaction effect of health literacy on mistrust and communication quality was also assessed. A total of 410 patients were analyzed. High levels of mistrust were observed. In multivariable modeling, patients with higher mistrust had lower adjusted odds of reporting a higher CAT score (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.52, 0.86], p = .003) and higher scores on the Communication (AOR = 0.69, 95% CI [0.55, 0.88], p = .008), Decided Together (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.59, 0.93], p = .02), and Interpersonal Style (AOR = 0.69, 95% CI [0.53, 0.90], p = .015) subscales of the IPC-18. We observed evidence of an interaction effect of health literacy for the association between mistrust and the Decided Together subscale of the IPC-18 such that patients with higher mistrust and lower literacy perceived worse communication relative to mistrustful patients with higher literacy. In conclusion, medical mistrust was associated with poorer communication with providers in this public health setting. Patients' health literacy level may vary the effect of mistrust on interactional aspects of communication. Providers should consider the impact of mistrust on communication with vulnerable diabetes populations and focus efforts on mitigating its influence.


Subject(s)
Attitude to Health , Communication , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Physician-Patient Relations , Vulnerable Populations/psychology , Adult , Female , Health Literacy/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Trust/psychology , Vulnerable Populations/statistics & numerical data
3.
Patient Educ Couns ; 98(2): 144-9, 2015 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25468393

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes patients with limited resources often experience suboptimal care. Less is known about the role of effective health communication (HC) in caring for low income diabetes patients. METHODS: Ten health department clinics in TN participated in a trial evaluating a literacy-sensitive communication intervention. We assessed the quality of baseline HC and measured associations with diabetes outcomes. Assessments included: demographics, measures of HC, health literacy, self-care behaviors, self-efficacy, medication non-adherence, treatment satisfaction, and A1C. Unadjusted and adjusted multivariable regression models were used to test associations. RESULTS: Participants (N=411) were 49.7±9.5 years, 61% female, uninsured (96%), with A1C 9.6±2.1. In unadjusted analyses, better communication, was associated with lower medication non-adherence (OR 0.40-0.68, all p<0.05), higher treatment satisfaction (OR 1.76-1.96, all p<0.01), portion size reduction (OR 1.43, p<0.05), diabetes self-efficacy (OR 1.41, p<0.05), and lower A1C (ß=-0.06, p<0.01). In adjusted analyses, communication quality remained associated with lower medication non-adherence (AOR 0.39-0.68, all p<0.05), and higher treatment satisfaction (AOR 1.90-2.21, all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Better communication between low-income patients and providers was independently associated with lower medication non-adherence and higher treatment satisfaction. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication quality may be an important modifiable approach to improving diabetes care for vulnerable populations.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/psychology , Health Communication , Health Literacy , Personal Satisfaction , Poverty , Self Care , Adult , Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Male , Medication Adherence/psychology , Medication Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Poverty/psychology , Self Efficacy , Tennessee , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...