| Literature DB >> 29786501 |
Jermy-Leigh B Domingo1, Gretchenjan Gavero2, Kathryn L Braun3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cultural tailoring of interventions can be effective in reducing health disparities by attracting underserved populations to health promotion programs and improving their outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess what is known about increasing access to and participation in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and control programs among Filipino Americans.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29786501 PMCID: PMC5985898 DOI: 10.5888/pcd15.170294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prev Chronic Dis ISSN: 1545-1151 Impact factor: 2.830
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart for article selection, review of articles on increasing Filipino Amercian participation in cardiovascular disease prevention programs, United States, 2004–2016.
Description of Articles (N = 9) Included in Analysis, Review of Studies on Increasing Filipino American Participation in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Programs, United States, 2004–2016
| Source | Location | Study Design | Intervention Focus | Health Education Curricula | Intervention Duration | Class Length | Sample Size of FAs, No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bender et al, 2016 ( | San Francisco, California | RCT with waitlist control | Diabetes prevention | DPP plus NHLBI Healthy Heart, Healthy Family for FAs (PilAm Go4Health) | 6 Months | 7 In-person visits total | 45 |
| Fernandes et al, 2012 ( | Honolulu, Hawai‘i | One group pre–post test | CVD risk reduction | NHLBI Healthy Heart, Healthy Family for FAs | 11 Weeks plus 1-year follow-up | 2-Hour sessions (11 sessions total) | 92 |
| Inouye et al, 2014 ( | Honolulu, Hawai‘i | RCT with waitlist control | Diabetes prevention | DPP plus Healthy Heart, Healthy Family (Health is Wealth) | 6 Weeks to 6 months | 90-Minute sessions (8 sessions total) | 40 |
| Ursua et al, 2014 ( | New Jersey and New York State | One group pre–post test | CVD risk reduction | NHLBI Healthy Heart, Healthy Family for FAs | 4 Months | 90-Minute sessions (4 sessions total) | 39 |
| Tomioka et al, 2012 ( | Honolulu, Hawai‘i | One group pre–post test | Chronic condition management | Stanford CDSMP | 6 Weeks | 2.5-Hour sessions (6 sessions total) | 160 (FA) |
| Dirige et al, 2013 ( | San Diego County, California | RCT | Chronic disease prevention | Nutrition physical activity program | 18 Months | Not reported | 255 |
| Tomioka et al, 2014 ( | Honolulu, Hawai‘i | One group pre–post test | Diabetes self-management | Stanford DSMP | 6 Weeks | 2.5-Hour sessions (6 sessions total) | 82 (FA) |
| Finucane and McMullen, 2008 ( | Honolulu, Hawai‘i | Qualitative | Diabetes self-management | Diabetes self-management education | — | — | — |
Abbreviations: — , not applicable; CDSMP, chronic disease self-management program; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DPP, diabetes prevention program; DSMP, diabetes self-management program; FA, Filipino American; NHLBI, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Incorporation of Filipino Values in Interventions and Associated Outcomes, Review of Studies on Increasing Filipino American Participation in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Programs, United States, 2004–2016a
| Characteristic | Study | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ursua et al, 2014 ( | Fernandes et al, 2012 ( | Bender et al, 2016 ( | Inouye et al, 2014 ( | Tomioka et al, 2012 ( | Tomioka et al, 2014 ( | Dirige et al, 2013 ( | |
|
| |||||||
| Spirituality | X | X | X | ||||
| Family | X | X | X | X | |||
| Upward social mobility | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Caring and social relationships | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Country | X | X | X | X | |||
| Arts | X | X | X | ||||
| Food | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Life events | X | X | X | X | X | ||
|
| |||||||
| Clinical | Improvements in BP and BMI | NS | NA | Improvements in BMI, weight, and waist circumference | NA | Improvements in BMI, HbA1c, cholesterol, and BP | NA |
| CVD knowledge | + | + | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Behavior | Improvements in health behaviors | Improvements in diet and self-management | NA | NA | Improvements in doctor communication and self-management | Improvements in health behaviors, self-monitoring, self-rated health, and coping | + |
| Satisfaction | + | + | NA | + | + | NA | NA |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; NA, not applicable (final results still pending intervention completion); NS, not significant.
“X” indicates that the component was included in the intervention; “+” indicates overall improvement.
Quality Assessment and Intervention Efficacy, Review of Studies on Increasing Filipino American Participation in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Programs, United States, 2004–2016
| Source | QA Score | Effectiveness | Reach | Feasibility | Sustainability | Transferability | Total Impact Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dirige et al, 2013 ( | 8 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 2.9 |
| Ursua et al, 2014 ( | 8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
| Bender et al, 2016 ( | 8 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Fernandes et al, 2012 ( | 7 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 3.3 | 2.5 |
| Tomioka et al, 2012 ( | 7 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.2 |
| Tomioka et al, 2014 ( | 7 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.1 |
| Inouye et al, 2014 ( | 6 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.4 |
Quality assessment (QA) score is the total number (of 9) of quality criteria met by study. Total scores translated as <5 = limited quality; 5–7 = fair quality; and 8–9 = good quality.
Effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability, scored from 1 = low to 4 = high.
Total impact score is the mean of effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability scores for the intervention. Total scores translated as <2 = low impact; 2–3 = moderate impact; >3 = high impact.
Figure 2Graph of intervention efficacy according to the Spencer grid (21), review of articles on increasing Filipino Amercian participation in cardiovascular disease prevention programs, United States, 2004–2016. The quality assessment score is the total number of quality criteria of 9 total that were met by the study (<5 = limited quality, 5–7 = fair quality, 8–9 = good quality). The total impact score is the mean of effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability scores for the intervention (<2 = low impact, 2–3 = moderate impact, >3 = high impact).