What should we include in a cultural competence curriculum? An emerging formative evaluation process to foster curriculum development.

PURPOSE: To identify, prioritize, and organize components of a cultural competence curriculum to address disparities in cardiovascular disease. METHOD: In 2006, four separate nominal group technique sessions were conducted with medical students, residents, community physicians, and academic physicians to generate and prioritize a list of concepts (i.e., ideas) to include in a curriculum. Afterward, 45 educators and researchers organized and prioritized the concepts using a card-sorting exercise. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis produced homogeneous groupings of related concepts and generated a cognitive map. The main outcome measures were the number of cultural competence concepts, their relative ranks, and the cognitive map. RESULTS: Thirty participants generated 61 concepts; 29 were identified by at least two participants. The cognitive map organized concepts into four clusters, interpreted as (1) patient's cultural background (e.g., information on cultures, habits, values), (2) provider and health care (e.g., clinical skills, awareness of one's bias, patient centeredness, professionalism), communication skills (e.g., history, stereotype avoidance, health disparities epidemiology), (3) cross-culture (e.g., idiomatic expressions, examples of effective communication), and (4) resources to manage cultural diversity (e.g., translator guides, instructions, community resources). The MDS two-dimensional solution demonstrated a good fit (stress = 0.07; R² = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: A novel, combined approach allowed stakeholders' inputs to identify and cognitively organize critical domains used to guide development of a cultural competence curriculum. Educators may use this approach to develop and organize educational content for their target audiences, especially in ill-defined areas like cultural competence.

Medication assistance programs: do all in need benefit equally?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if medication assistance programs (MAPs) provided by pharmaceutical companies were used differently by African Americans and Whites. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among patients of primary care practices from 2005 to 2007 within the Alabama Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Patient Safety Study. SETTING: Telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were 568 African American and White patients reporting annual household incomes < $50,000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of MAPs. RESULTS: Of all patients, 12.8% used MAPs, 39.5% were African American, 75.2% were female, 69.1% were aged > 65 years, 79.8% had annual household incomes < $25,000, and 35.5% indicated that their income was inadequate to meet their basic needs. MAPs were used by 11.2% African-Americans and 14.0% Whites. After multivariable adjustment, MAP use was higher among respondents with incomes not adequate to meet basic needs (odds ratio [OR]: 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-4.08) but lower among African Americans than Whites (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25-0.95). Physician characteristics did not independently predict MAP use. CONCLUSIONS: Overall MAP use was low even among the most vulnerable, and especially among African Americans. As currently used, MAPs may contribute to disparities in medication access.