Jane W Njeru1, Mark L Wieland2, Gracia Kwete3,4, Eugene M Tan5, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf6, Amenah A Agunwamba7, Larry J Prokop8, M Hassan Murad7,9. 1. Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. njeru.jane@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Mayo Medical Library, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 9. Division of Preventive, Occupational, and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have several health disparities, including suboptimal patient-provider interactions, poorer glycemic control, and T2DM complications. Understanding existing interventions for improving T2DM outcomes in this population is critical for reducing disparities. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining the effectiveness of interventions in improving T2DM outcomes among patients with LEP in North America. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-RCT studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies, 39 of which reported sufficient data for meta-analysis of glycemic control, were included. The interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (weighted difference in means, -0.84% [95% CI, -0.97 to -0.71]) that was, however, very heterogeneous across studies (I2 = 95.9%). Heterogeneity was explained by study design (lower efficacy in RCTs than non-RCTs) and by intervention length and delivery mode (greater reduction in interventions lasting <6 months or delivered face-to-face); P < 0.05 for all three covariates. The interventions were also associated in most studies with improvement in knowledge, self-efficacy in diabetes management, quality of life, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. DISCUSSION: Multiple types of interventions are available for T2DM management in patients with LEP. Multicomponent interventions delivered face-to-face seem most effective for glycemic control. More research is needed to better understand other aspects of multicomponent interventions that are critical for improving important outcomes among patients with T2DM and LEP.
BACKGROUND:Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have several health disparities, including suboptimal patient-provider interactions, poorer glycemic control, and T2DM complications. Understanding existing interventions for improving T2DM outcomes in this population is critical for reducing disparities. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining the effectiveness of interventions in improving T2DM outcomes among patients with LEP in North America. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-RCT studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies, 39 of which reported sufficient data for meta-analysis of glycemic control, were included. The interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (weighted difference in means, -0.84% [95% CI, -0.97 to -0.71]) that was, however, very heterogeneous across studies (I2 = 95.9%). Heterogeneity was explained by study design (lower efficacy in RCTs than non-RCTs) and by intervention length and delivery mode (greater reduction in interventions lasting <6 months or delivered face-to-face); P < 0.05 for all three covariates. The interventions were also associated in most studies with improvement in knowledge, self-efficacy in diabetes management, quality of life, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. DISCUSSION: Multiple types of interventions are available for T2DM management in patients with LEP. Multicomponent interventions delivered face-to-face seem most effective for glycemic control. More research is needed to better understand other aspects of multicomponent interventions that are critical for improving important outcomes among patients with T2DM and LEP.
Entities:
Keywords:
chronic disease; diabetes; disease management; health communication; language barriers; limited English proficiency
Authors: Chandra Y Osborn; Kerri Cavanaugh; Kenneth A Wallston; Sunil Kripalani; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman; Richard O White Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2011
Authors: Darrell J Gaskin; Roland J Thorpe; Emma E McGinty; Kelly Bower; Charles Rohde; J Hunter Young; Thomas A LaVeist; Lisa Dubay Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nathaly Garzón-Orjuela; Daniel Felipe Samacá-Samacá; Silvia Catalina Luque Angulo; Carmen Verônica Mendes Abdala; Ludovic Reveiz; Javier Eslava-Schmalbach Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2020-10-28