Perceived Barriers and Potential Strategies to Improve Self-Management Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Community-Engaged Research Approach

Patient

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 349-358

  Purnell, Tanjala S ^a,b   Lynch, Thomas J ^b   Bone, Lee ^a,b   Segal, Jodi B ^a,b   Evans, Crystal ^b   Longo, Daniel R ^c   Bridges, John F P ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIABETES EDUCATION; E-MAIL; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; FOOD; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOME ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; INCOME; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MARYLAND; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NEIGHBORHOOD; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF CARE; SOCIAL STIGMA; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SUPPORT GROUP; URBAN POPULATION; WORK ENVIRONMENT; CATERING SERVICE; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENT; FAMILY; HEALTH CARE COST; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; ENVIRONMENT; FAMILY; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; FOOD SUPPLY; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SELF CARE; SOCIAL SUPPORT;

EID: 84960118724     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0162-3     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report 2014: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/statsreport14/national-diabetes-report-web.pdf.
2. American Diabetes Association. Statistics about diabetes, 2014 report. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/. Accessed 5 Aug 2015.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Who is at risk? http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/risk/aa/index.html. Accessed 5 Aug 2015.
4. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes: position statement. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):S14–80.
5. Fu AZ, Qiu Y, Radican L, Luo N. Marginal differences in health-related quality of life of diabetic patients with and without macrovascular comorbid conditions in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(6):825–32.
6. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Gavriel S, Rousculp MD, Boye KS, Ahmad A. Health utility values associated with diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med. 2008;25(5):618–24.
7. Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM, et al. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2006;296(4):427–40.
8. Glazier RH, Bajcar J, Kennie NR, Willson K. A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(7):1675–88.
9. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1364–79.
10. Purnell TS, Joy S, Little E, Bridges JF, Maruthur N. Patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):2055–62.
11. American Association of Diabetes Educators. Cultural sensitivity and diabetes education: AADE position statement. Diabetes Educator. 2012;38(1):137–41.
12. Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.
13. Golden SH, Brown A. Cauley JA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Kim C, Sosa JA, Sumner AE, Anton B. Health disparities in endocrine disorders: biological, clinical, and non-clinical factors—an Endocrine Society scientific statement. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(9):E1579–E1639.
14. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. What the research community can learn from patient and stakeholder engagement. http://www.pcori.org/blog/what-research-community-can-learn-patient-and-stakeholder-engagement. Accessed 14 Sept 2015.
15. Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Community Research Advisory Council. http://ictr.johnshopkins.edu/consulting/consulting-services/research-participant-and-community-partnerships-core/community-resources/community-research-advisory-council/. Accessed 14 Sept 2015.
16. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Type 2 Diabetes Stated Preferences Research. Diabetes Action Board. http://www.jhsph.edu/research/affiliated-programs/stated-preferences/projects/type-2-diabetes/diabetes-action-board/. Accessed 14 Sept 2015.
17. Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes. Wiley; 2011. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1Wry09vE_HUC&oi=fnd&pg=PT45&dq=minkler+m,+wallerstein+n.+introduction+to+community+based+participatory+research&ots=tHjXbXPxPK&sig=Opkwwx4T3495r6t1txX9ie9P0tY#v=onepage&q=minkler%20m%2C%20wallerstein%20n.%20introduction%20to%20community%20based%20participatory%20research&f=false
18. Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K, Hunt G, Meltzer D, Slutsky JR, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2013;32(2):393–400.
19. O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, LaBrant L, Most C, Lee K, et al. Methods for engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize future research needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. 2011, AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF.
20. Gooberman-Hill R. Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences. Patient. 2012;5(4):215–23.
21. Smith JA, Osborn M. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods. London: Sage Publications; 2008.
22. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretive phenomenological analysis: theory, method, and research. London: Sage Publications; 2009.
23. Larkin M, Watts S, Clifton E. Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):102–20.
24. Bridges JF, Gallego G, Blauvelt BM. Controlling liver cancer internationally: a qualitative study of clinicians’ perceptions of current public policy needs. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:32–4505.
25. BioMed Central. Qualitative research review guidelines—RATS. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/rats. Accessed 6 Aug 2015.
26. Ames A, Evans M, Fox L, Milam A, Petteway R, Rutledge R. 2011 Neighborhood health profiles. Baltimore City Health Department; 2011. Available electronically at http://www.baltimorehealth.org/dataresearch.html.
27. Chlebowy DO, Hood S, LaJoie AS. Facilitators and barriers to self-management of type 2 diabetes among urban African American adults. Diabetes Educator. 2010;36(6):897–905.
28. Brown AF, Ettner SL, Piette J, et al. Socioeconomic position and health among persons with diabetes mellitus: a conceptual framework and review of the literature. Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26:63–77.
29. Johnson AE, Boulware LE, Anderson CA, Chit-ua-aree T, Kahan K, Boyer LL, Liu Y, Crews DC. Perceived barriers and facilitators of using dietary modification for CKD prevention among African Americans of low socioeconomic status: a qualitative study. BMC Nephrol. 2014;15:194.
30. Franco M, Diez Roux AV, Glass TA, Caballero B, Brancati FL. Neighborhood characteristics and availability of healthy foods in Baltimore. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(6):561–7.
31. Schneider EC, Zaslavsky AM, Epstein AM. Racial disparities in the quality of care for enrollees in medicare managed care. JAMA. 2002;287(10):1288–94.
32. Bynum JP, Fisher ES, Song Y, Skinner J, Chandra A. Measuring racial disparities in the quality of ambulatory diabetes care. Med Care. 2010;48(12):1057–63.
33. Williams DR, Collins C. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep. 2001;116(5):404–416.