| Literature DB >> 24852392 |
Nadia S Islam1, Jennifer M Zanowiak2, Laura C Wyatt3, Rucha Kavathe4, Hardayal Singh5, Simona C Kwon6, Chau Trinh-Shevrin7.
Abstract
India has one of the highest burdens of diabetes worldwide, and rates of diabetes are also high among Asian Indian immigrants that have migrated into the United States (U.S.). Sikhs represent a significant portion of Asian Indians in the U.S. Diabetes prevention programs have shown the benefits of using lifestyle intervention to reduce diabetes risk, yet there have been no culturally-tailored programs for diabetes prevention in the Sikh community. Using a quasi-experimental two-arm design, 126 Sikh Asian Indians living in New York City were enrolled in a six-workshop intervention led by community health workers. A total of 108 participants completed baseline and 6-month follow-up surveys between March 2012 and October 2013. Main outcome measures included clinical variables (weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol) and health behaviors (changes in physical activity, food behaviors, and diabetes knowledge). Changes were significant for the treatment group in weight, BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose, physical activity, food behaviors, and diabetes knowledge, and between group differences were significant for glucose, diabetes knowledge, portion control, and physical activity social interaction. Retention rates were high. Findings demonstrate that a diabetes prevention program in the Sikh community is acceptable, feasible, and efficacious.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24852392 PMCID: PMC4053907 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110505462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Example of Community Engagement through the Research Process.
| Stage of Research Process | Engagement of Community Partners/Representatives |
|---|---|
| Project Initiation | Academic agency conducted a health needs assessment survey in collaboration with South Asian community organizations in 2007 which highlighted high burden of diabetes in this population. |
| Prior to grant submission, academic agency worked with largest Sikh social service agency in New York City to develop a diabetes prevention protocol. | |
| Grant submission was developed collaboratively and awarded. | |
| Memorandums of Understanding were developed jointly by academic and community partner outlining roles and responsibilities on the project. Grant funds are distributed across both community and academic partners. | |
| CBO selected key community partners (community leaders, religious leaders, health providers, media) to participate in coalition; Academic agency identified health professionals with expertise on topic areas relevant to the intervention. | |
| Study Design | CHWs hired by the CBO were based at CBO site to build capacity within the organization and ensure acceptance by the community. |
| Coalition tailored existing curricula and developed evaluation tools for use in the Sikh community, with particular importance placed upon cultural relevancy of concepts and examples, and linguistic concordance. | |
| Screening tool adapted to include Asian BMI categories based on input from community health providers. | |
| Community partner input into study design facilitated adapting the DPP for the Sikh community (e.g., reduction of the total number of sessions, translation of study materials). | |
| Due to concerns regarding the close-knit nature of the community within neighborhoods and negative community perceptions regarding randomization at the individual level, partners recommended that the treatment and control groups should be allocated by neighborhood. | |
| Study Implementations | CHWs recruited participants at partner gurdwara sites as well as other community locations; collaborative meetings were held with key gurdwara leaders to ensure support and ownership for the project. |
| Intervention was delivered by trained CHWs who were members of the communityData was collected by trained CHWs who were members of the community. | |
| Analysis & Interpretation | Outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned were assessed and reviewed by the coalition in a continuous process through weekly calls and monthly meetings to adapt and refine the intervention and ensure continued cultural and linguistic relevancy. |
| CBO partners and community representatives consulted to interpret data findings. | |
| Dissemination of Findings | Held community forums and presented project findings in “lay language”. |
| Dissemination of study findings to ethnic media. | |
| CHW Supervisor served as co-presenter at multiple public health conferences; CBO staff serve as co-authors on project publications. | |
| Sustainability | Ongoing efforts to sustain funding for diabetes- and health promotion-related education and services so that project activities can continue beyond existing grant. |
| New health priority areas identified by CBO based on formative research conducted for this project; funding sought and secured by CBO. |
Figure 1CONSORT Diagram of Study Sample.
Adaptation and Culturally Tailored Components of Curriculum.
| Project RICE Curriculum Session Title & Content | Corresponding DPP/PTP Session | Tailored Cultural Components |
|---|---|---|
| Diabetes prevention: | Concept of prevention tied to Sikh core values, e.g., discussion of the concept of “Saint-Soldier” in Sikhism, which promotes discipline in spiritual practice as well as in social responsibilities | |
| Discussion of diabetes prevalence and increased risk of diabetes in Asians | ||
| Discussion of diabetes among Sikh Asian Indians | ||
| Explanation of BMI and at-risk BMI in Asian communities | ||
| Dispelling common cultural misconceptions regarding diabetes (e.g., getting diabetes is a natural part of aging)Incorporation of culturally appropriate images and language | ||
| Nutrition: | Photos of typical Punjabi/North Indian foods | |
| Healthy elements in traditional Indian cooking (e.g., whole grain options for rotis, incorporating fruits and vegetables) | ||
| Identifying and limiting deep-fried snacks high in salt and sweets high in fat and sugar; substituting sweets with fruits | ||
| Healthy vegetarian options | ||
| Healthy versions of popular Indian recipes | ||
| Following the Plate Method with traditional Punjabi foods | ||
| Managing expectations for eating langar at gurdwara | ||
| Reading food labels | ||
| Working with women participants to improve nutrition in the entire household | ||
| Incorporation of culturally appropriate images and language | ||
| Physical activity: | Discussion of physical activity as essential to physical and mental fitness (e.g., encouragement to practice similar discipline in physical activity as in prayer) | |
| Home-based exercise/activities | ||
| Practice Activity | ||
| Incorporation of culturally appropriate images and language | ||
| Diabetes complications and other cardiovascular diseases: | Discussion of diabetes complications, heart disease, stroke | |
| Discussion of prevention and inter-connectedness of chronic diseases | ||
| Discussion of cholesterol and fats in diet, blood pressure and salt in diet | ||
| Review of popular Punjabi foods high in salt and fat and limiting these foods | ||
| Incorporation of culturally appropriate images/language | ||
| Stress and family support: | Discussion of Naam Simran, a meditation practice in Sikhism | |
| Progressive muscle relaxation for stress relief | ||
| Strategies to manage depression; discussion around stigma associated with mental health (e.g., depression) | ||
| Incorporation of culturally appropriate images and language | ||
| Access to healthcare: | Preparing for a doctor’s visit | |
| Communicating with the doctor | ||
| Patient bill of rights and language access laws | ||
| Review of NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation Options Program and the Affordable Care Act | ||
| Health access resources and providers who speak Punjabi | ||
| Incorporation of culturally appropriate images and language |
Baseline characteristics of participants (n = 126).
| Characteristics | Treatment Group | Control Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 46.3 (11.6) | 47.8 (9.5) | 0.40 |
| Female | 73 (96.1) | 29 (58.0) | <0.01 |
| Born outside the U.S. | 76 (100.0) | 50 (100.0) | 1.00 |
| Years lived in U.S., mean (SD) | 10.5 (6.9) | 14.9 (6.8) | <0.01 |
| Married | 71 (93.4) | 47 (97.9) | 0.26 |
| <0.01 | |||
| <High school | 12 (16.2) | 4 (8.2) | |
| High school/some college | 43 (58.1) | 42 (85.7) | |
| College graduate | 19 (25.7) | 3 (6.1) | |
| Speaks English not well or not at all | 28 (37.8) | 26 (52.0) | 0.12 |
| 0.03 | |||
| Uninsured | 9 (13.0) | 14 (31.1) | |
| Public/hospital card | 50 (72.5) | 29 (64.4) | |
| Private | 10 (14.5) | 2 (4.0) | |
| Fair or poor self-reported health | 13 (17.6) | 24 (50.0) | <0.01 |
| Weight (lbs), mean (SD) | 162.4 (26.6) | 174.9 (23.0) | <0.01 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD) | 28.2 (4.0) | 28.6 (3.0) | 0.57 |
| Overweight (23–27.49) | 30 (39.5) | 16 (32.0) | |
| Obese (≥27.50) | 41 (53.9) | 32 (64.0) | |
| Glucose (mg/dL), mean (SD) | 112.3 (34.0) | 110.7 (21.6) | 0.78 |
| Cholesterol (mg/dL), mean (SD) | 152.1 (37.9) | 138.9 (33.9) | 0.07 |
| Systolic BP (mmHg), mean (SD) | 129.8 (15.9) | 128.7 (16.7) | 0.73 |
| Diastolic BP (mmHg), mean (SD) | 83.9 (9.0) | 85.6 (10.8) | 0.35 |
| Hypertensive | 22 (30.6) | 17 (34.0) | |
| Pre-hypertensive | 37 (51.4) | 23 (46.0) |
Changes in outcomes.
| Outcome Measures | Treatment (T) Group n = 54 | Control (C) Group n = 48 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean BL | Mean 3 M | Mean 6 M | n | Mean BL | Mean 3 M | Mean 6 M | T | |||
| Weight, lbs | 54 | 160.2 (27.7) | 157.5 (26.6) | 155.4 (25.4) | <0.01 | 48 | 174.8 (23.2) | 169.1 (22.8) | 173.7 (19.3) | 0.53 | 0.10 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 54 | 27.8 (4.2) | 27.4 (4.1) | 27.0 (4.0) | <0.01 | 48 | 28.6 (3.0) | 27.7 (3.0) | 28.5 (2.7) | 0.69 | 0.08 |
| Waist circumference, inches | 49 | 36.7 (5.9) | 35.2 (4.6) | 34.6 (4.2) | <0.01 | 42 | 36.7 (3.4) | 35.8 (3.5) | 35.4 (2.8) | <0.01 | 0.39 |
| Glucose | 50 | 114.5 (36.8) | 96.7 (17.6) | 88.9 (16.5) | <0.01 | 40 | 111.3 (22.0) | 102.2 (19.3) | 113.0 (12.0) | 0.56 | <0.01 |
| Cholesterol | 46 | 144.7 (35.7) | 182.7 (43.3) | 168.7 (30.5) | <0.01 | 40 | 138.5 (34.4) | 111.7 (20.3) | 137.3 (30.8) | 0.85 | <0.01 |
| Systolic BP | 51 | 131.6 (16.6) | 118.6 (12.4) | 118.2 (10.6) | <0.01 | 47 | 128.0 (16.2) | 118.4 (16.1) | 112.1 (12.1) | <0.01 | 0.47 |
| Diastolic BP | 51 | 83.1 (8.6) | 78.4 (8.3) | 78.0 (7.4) | <0.01 | 47 | 86.0 (10.5) | 79.8 (8.8) | 79.9 (5.6) | <0.01 | 0.61 |
| Controlled BP, n (%) | 51 | 36 (70.6) | 45 (88.2) | 49 (96.1) | <0.01 | 47 | 33 (70.2) | 42 (89.4) | 45 (95.7) | <0.01 | n/a |
| Any physical activity, n (%) | 53 | 2 (3.8) | 44 (83.0) | 47 (88.7) | <0.01 | 38 | 15 (39.5) | 27 (71.1) | 19 (50.0) | 0.36 | n/a |
| Social interaction (1–4, 4 = highest) | 53 | 1.4 (0.6) | 2.4 (0.8) | 3.6 (0.5) | <0.01 | 46 | 1.7 (0.7) | 1.6 (0.6) | 1.9 (0.6) | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| Portion control (1–4, 4 = highest) | 49 | 1.8 (0.8) | 2.5 (0.8) | 3.6 (0.7) | <0.01 | 46 | 2.9 (0.9) | 2.1 (0.8) | 2.7 (0.6) | 0.09 | <0.01 |
| Eats brown rice often/almost always, n (%) | 40 | 2 (5.0) | 7 (17.5) | 10 (25.0) | <0.01 | 26 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1.0 | n/a |
| ADA diabetes knowledge Scale (0–8, 8 = highest) | 51 | 3.6 (2.3) | 5.5 (1.5) | 6.5 (0.6) | <0.01 | 44 | 3.5 (2.1) | 5.3 (1.5) | 4.9 (1.3) | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Michigan diabetes knowledge scale (0–7, 7 = highest) | 50 | 1.1 (1.0) | 3.1 (1.5) | 3.2 (1.0) | <0.01 | 45 | 2.1 (1.2) | 3.4 (1.8) | 3.1 (1.0) | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Satisfaction with the CHW Program (n = 59).
| Program Evaluation | Intervention Group (n = 59) |
|---|---|
| A lot | 54 (91.5) |
| Some | 5 (8.5) |
| CHW | 58 (100.0) |
| Primary care doctor | 49 (86.0) |
| Health professionals besides doctors | 36 (62.1) |
| Strongly agree | 43 (72.9) |
| Agree | 15 (25.4) |
| Disagree | 1 (1.7) |
| Strongly agree | 54 (91.5) |
| Agree | 5 (8.5) |
| Strongly agree | 31 (52.5) |
| Agree | 28 (47.5) |
| Strongly agree | 32 (54.2) |
| Agree | 27 (45.8) |
| 8–Very satisfied | 1 (1.7) |
| 9 | 6 (10.3) |
| 10–Totally satisfied | 51 (88.0) |
Challenges experienced during pilot and modifications made to the full intervention.
| Challenges | Reason | Modifications Made to Full Intervention |
|---|---|---|
| Difficulty recruiting male participants | Sikh males are concentrated in small business and service sector position with long work hours | Working with gurdwara leadership to recruit more men into the project |
| Accommodating male participant schedules through additional sessions at convenient times | ||
| Word-of-mouth referrals—ask screening and intervention participants to refer their friends and family members | ||
| Lack of awareness regarding prevention | Misperception regarding the need for diabetes prevention in the absence of a diabetes diagnosis; general lack of community-level emphasis on prevention | Stronger partnerships and outreach to gurdwara leadership and staff to promote awareness for prevention |
| Better messaging of the social and financial implications of having the disease | ||
| Hold more community education events on diabetes and diabetes prevention in the Sikh American community | ||
| Goal-setting for participants | Participants were reluctant to engage in goal-setting or not familiar with the process | CHWs will receive additional training on motivational interviewing and goal-setting that is culturally tailored |
| Retention | Participants were unable to sustain participation due to family obligations and/or work schedules | Accommodating participants’ schedules by offering additional sessions at convenient times |
| Building in more incentives/prizes for retention | ||
| Marketing of Project RICE at routinely held health fairs to increase awareness of the program |