| Literature DB >> 22410191 |
Joan A Vaccaro1, Daniel J Feaster, Sandra L Lobar, Marianna K Baum, Marcia Magnus, Fatma G Huffman.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, particularly among minorities, and if improperly managed can lead to medical complications and death. Healthcare providers play vital roles in communicating standards of care, which include guidance on diabetes self-management. The background of the client may play a role in the patient-provider communication process. The aim of this study was to determine the association between medical advice and diabetes self care management behaviors for a nationally representative sample of adults with diabetes. Moreover, we sought to establish whether or not race/ethnicity was a modifier for reported medical advice received and diabetes self-management behaviors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22410191 PMCID: PMC3362774 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Ecological model applied to diabetes self-management and health outcomes. Adapted from the NHLBI workshop on predictors of obesity, weight gain, diet and physical activity; August 4-5, 2004; Bethesda MD and from Ecological model [7]. Notes: The grey areas denote constructs that are not measured by this study. The level and quality of patient-provider communication is unknown and is designated as a precursor for this study. It is assumed that persons diagnosed with diabetes would have some level of communication with health care professionals.
Characteristics of the participants (N = 624)a
| Variableb | MA | BNH | WNH | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 56.2 ± 1.95 | 57.6 ± 0.89 | 60.7 ± 0.65 | 0.019 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Gender | - | - | 0.127 | |||
| Male | 54 (48.1) | 96 (398) | 160 (50.2) | - | - | |
| Female | 67 (51.9) | 117 (60.2) | 128 (49.8) | - | - | |
| Years with diabetes | 9.68 ± 0.85 | 11.6 ± 0.67 | 11.6 ± 0.68 | 0.127 | 0.989 | 0.242 |
| Education | < 0.001 | |||||
| ≤ 8th grade | 56 (41.5) | 25 (9.2) | 37 (10.1) | - | - | - |
| > 8th < HS | 29 (25.7) | 60 (28.2) | 59 (15.0) | - | - | - |
| HS/GED | 12 (11.8) | 50 (24.1) | 89 (31.0) | - | - | - |
| Some college | 23 (21.0) | 78 (38.6) | 103 (43.7) | - | - | - |
| Income | 0.132 | |||||
| < 15,000 | 21 (17.0) | 47 (21.3) | 49 (12.0) | - | - | - |
| 15 to 34,999 | 29 (26.5) | 62 (30.9) | 111(34.2) | - | - | - |
| 35 to 54,999 | 26(24.0) | 33(15.8) | 41(16.4) | - | - | - |
| 55 to 74,999 | 9 (7.1) | 24 (12.3) | 21 (12.7) | - | - | - |
| ≥ 75,000 | 20 (15.3) | 28 (16.1) | 38 (22.4) | - | - | - |
| Refused | 5 (3.4) | 2 (0.6) | 4 (2.2) | - | - | - |
| Don't know | 6 (3.9) | 5 (2.9) | 2 (0.6) | - | ||
| Health insurancec | 38.0 (6.7) | 14.8 (3.3) | 6.9 (1.2) | < 0.001 | 0.055 | < 0.001 |
| Age first told had diabetesd | 71.8(21) | 46.0(1.1) | 60.8(5.4) | < 0.001 | ||
Abbreviations: MA = Mexican American; BNH = Black non-Hispanic; WNH = White non-Hispanic; BMI = body mass index; LDL = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
aunweighted cases varies based on the variable for the: MEC (mobile examination center) participants.
b Continuous variables are given as (mean ± SE) were tested by one-way ANOVA and categorical; variables are given as N (%) and were tested by Pearson's chi-square.
c The values are percent (SE) for the unadjusted odds ratios. The adjusted odds ratios are as follows; OR MA/WNH = 5.73 (2.17, 15.1), p < 0.001; OR BNH/WNH = 1.90 (0.77, 4.70), p = 0.151 (controlling for age and education).
d Results are mean(SE). N = 622 (32 (5%) missing responses).
Likelihood of receiving medical advice by race/ethnicity and performing the behaviors
| Dependent | Independent | Unadjusted | Adjusted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnosed diabetes | |||
| Reducing fat or caloriesa | Told to reduce fat or calories | 8.78(5.57, 13.8) | 6.87(3.83, 12.3) |
| Increasing physical activity or exerciseb | Told to increase physical activity or exercise | 6.53 (3.73, 11.4) | 6.34(3.55, 11.5) |
| Controlling or losing weightc | Told to control or lose weight | 4.64 (2.32, 9.32) | 4.13(1.98,8.62) |
| Comparison undiagnosed/diagnosed diabetesd | |||
| Reducing fat or calories | Told to reduce fat or calories | ||
| Diagnosed | 8.73(5.86, 13.0) | 8.58 (5.78, 12.7) | |
| Undiagnosed | 2.54 (0.68, 9.43) | 2.28 (0.55, 9.53) | |
| Increasing physical activity or exercise | Told to increase physical activity or exercise | ||
| Diagnosed | 6.29 (3.88, 10.2) | 6.72 (3.87, 11.7) | |
| Undiagnosed | 3.03 (1.47, 6.27) | 2.87 (1.34, 6.12) | |
| Controlling or losing weight | Told to control or lose weight | ||
| Diagnosed | 4.48 (2.70, 7.44) | 4.18 (1.96, 8.94) | |
| Undiagnosed | 2.88 (0.52, 16.07) | 2.42 (0.38,15.16) | |
aAdjusted for age, gender, obesity and diabetes education; bAdjusted for age; cAdjusted for overweight/obesity; d Unadjusted models include the main effect of ethnicity/race; covariates for the adjusted models include age, gender, race/ethnicity, body mass index category, and health insurance.
Notes: The Odds are for those performed the behavior and the ratio is 'received/did not receive' the advice.There were no statistically significant differences comparing undiagnosed/diagnosed by told for any model.
Median, 25th and 75th percentile BMI stratified by level of medical advice and behavior
| Medical advice | Median BMI (P25, P75) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Told to reduce fat or calories | 33.5 (29.7, 38.8) | 29.1 (26.0, 33.1) | < 0.001 |
| Told to increase physical activity or exercise | 33.5 (29.4, 38.5) | 29.1 (25.9, 32.8) | < 0.001 |
| Told to control or lose weight | 34.3 (30.5, 39.3) | 28.2 (25.7, 31.8) | < 0.001 |
| Reducing fat or calories | 32.3 (28.7, 37.6) | 29.6 (26.1, 34.7) | 0.002 |
| Increasing physical activity or exercise | 32.4 (28.1, 37.2) | 30.7 (26.9, 36.1) | 0.200 |
| Controlling or losing weight | 32.3 (28.8, 37.3) | 29.7 (26.0, 34.9) | < 0.001 |
Cross-tabs for each medical advice and each behavior with quartiles of BMI were performed by complex analysis. Significance was based on the adjusted F and its degrees of freedom (adjusted for complex design). The adjusted F is a variant of the second-order Rao-Scott adjusted Chi-Square statistic.