A patient-centered comparative effectiveness research study of culturally appropriate options for diabetes self-management.

This project compared the effectiveness of two evidence-based models of culturally competent diabetes health promotion: The Diabetes Self-Management Support Empowerment Model (DSMS), and The Chronic Care Model (CCM). Our primary outcome was improvement in patient capacity for diabetes self-management as measured by the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Our secondary outcome was patient success at diabetes self-management as measured by improvement in A1c, depression sores using the PHQ-9, and Body Mass Index (BMI). We also gathered data on the cultural competence of the program using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cultural Competence Set (CAHPS-CC). We compared patient outcomes in two existing sites in Albuquerque, New Mexico that serve a large population of Latino diabetes patients from low-income households. Participants were enrolled as dyads-a patient participant (n=226) and a social support participant (n=226). Outcomes over time and by program were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed modeling, adjusted for patient participant demographic characteristics and other potential confounding covariates. Secondary outcomes were also adjusted for potential confounders. Interactions with both time and program helped to assess outcomes. This study did not find a difference between the two sites with respect to the primary outcome measures and only one of the three secondary outcomes showed differential results. The main difference between programs was that depression decreased more for CCM than for DSMS. An exploratory, subgroup analysis revealed that at CCM, patient participants with a very high A1c (>10) demonstrated a clinically meaningful decrease. However, given the higher cultural competence rating for the CCM, statistically significant improvement in depression, and the importance of social support to the patients, results suggest that a culturally and contextually situated diabetes self-management and education program design may deliver benefit for patients, especially for patients with higher A1c levels.

Training Patient Stakeholders Builds Community Capacity, Enhances Patient Engagement in Research.

Our philosophical framework for research with low-income Latino patients with diabetes prioritizes hiring research staff who share the culture and language of the population of study. Inclusive research design requires an active role by patient stakeholders with training opportunities in a collaborative learning environment to allow patient stakeholder data collectors (PSDCs) to build on existing strengths and expertise. To develop this manuscript, our team reflected on our collective experiences in implementing research-specific trainings for PSDCs. Although our population of study is known to be difficult to recruit and retain, our PSDCs have successfully enrolled participants on schedule, and attrition is low. Although language, institutional requirements, and funding restrictions presented training challenges, we overcame these by using a flexible approach and by incorporating the data collectors' expertise in refining our protocols. We propose that our success in recruiting and retaining participants is a reflection of our engaged research strategy and framework and demonstrates that engagement promotes better science. However, our experience also demonstrates research institutions need to make policy and infrastructural improvements to reduce barriers and make engaged approaches more feasible.

Collaboration and Outside-the-Box Thinking to Overcome Training-Related Challenges for Including Patient Stakeholders as Data Collectors in a Patient-Engaged Research Project.

Including patient stakeholders as active members of the research team is essential to a patient-engaged research design. To hire community-based research staff for a study comparing the effectiveness of diabetes self-management programs for Latinos, we had to provide phlebotomy training which was not allowed under the fiscal guidelines of our funders. By collaborating with partners at the Clinical and Translational Science Center, we were not only able to find a creative solution and provide phlebotomy training to our research staff but the process of creating the training also contributed to improved infrastructure for patient-engaged research at our institution.