Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(4): 1052-1059, 2020 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31919724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Effective type 2 diabetes care remains a challenge for patients including those receiving primary care in safety net settings. OBJECTIVE: The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) trial team and leaders from a regional department of health evaluated approaches to improve care for vulnerable patients. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes seeking care across 10 unblinded, randomly assigned safety net clinics in Middle TN. INTERVENTIONS: A literacy-sensitive, provider-focused, health communication intervention (PRIDE; 5 clinics) vs. standard diabetes education (5 clinics). MAIN MEASURES: Participant-level primary outcome was glycemic control [A1c] at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included select health behaviors and psychosocial aspects of care at 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to examine the comparative effectiveness of each approach to care. KEY RESULTS: Of 410 patients enrolled, 364 (89%) were included in analyses. Median age was 51 years; Black and Hispanic patients represented 18% and 25%; 96% were uninsured, and 82% had low annual income level (< $20,000); adequate health literacy was seen in 83%, but numeracy deficits were common. At 12 months, significant within-group treatment effects occurred from baseline for both PRIDE and control sites: adjusted A1c (- 0.76 [95% CI, - 1.08 to - 0.44]; P < .001 vs - 0.54 [95% CI, - 0.86 to - 0.21]; P = .001), odds of poor eating (0.53 [95% CI, 0.33-0.83]; P = .01 vs 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68]; P < .001), treatment satisfaction (3.93 [95% CI, 2.48-6.21]; P < .001 vs 3.04 [95% CI, 1.93-4.77]; P < .001), and self-efficacy (2.97 [95% CI, 1.89-4.67]; P < .001 vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.1-2.84]; P = .01). No significant difference was observed between study arms in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions improved the participant's A1c and behavioral outcomes. PRIDE was not more effective than standard education. Further research may elucidate the added value of a focused health communication program in this setting.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Health Communication , Health Literacy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Health Behavior , Humans , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care
2.
Diabetes Educ ; 42(1): 23-33, 2016 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26647414

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Patients with low literacy, low numeracy, and/or linguistic needs can experience challenges understanding diabetes information and applying concepts to their self-management. The authors designed a toolkit of education materials that are sensitive to patients' literacy and numeracy levels, language preferences, and cultural norms and that encourage shared goal setting to improve diabetes self-management and health outcomes. The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) toolkit was developed to facilitate diabetes self-management education and support. METHODS: The PRIDE toolkit includes a comprehensive set of 30 interactive education modules in English and Spanish to support diabetes self-management activities. The toolkit builds upon the authors' previously validated Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit (DLNET) by adding a focus on shared goal setting, addressing the needs of Spanish-speaking patients, and including a broader range of diabetes management topics. Each PRIDE module was evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument to determine the material's cultural appropriateness and its sensitivity to the needs of patients with low literacy and low numeracy. Reading grade level was also assessed using the Automated Readability Index (ARI), Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, Fry, and SMOG formulas. CONCLUSIONS: The average reading grade level of the materials was 5.3 (SD 1.0), with a mean SAM of 91.2 (SD 5.4). All of the 30 modules received a "superior" score (SAM >70%) when evaluated by 2 independent raters. The PRIDE toolkit modules can be used by all members of a multidisciplinary team to assist patients with low literacy and low numeracy in managing their diabetes.


Subject(s)
Culturally Competent Care/methods , Diabetes Mellitus , Health Literacy/methods , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Self Care/methods , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Language , Reading , Self Care/psychology
3.
Diabetes Educ ; 39(2): 240-7, 2013.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23399688

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the association between numeracy and self-reported dietary intake in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Numeracy and dietary intake were assessed with the validated Diabetes Numeracy Test and a validated food frequency questionnaire in a cross-sectional study of 150 primary care patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial at an academic medical center between April 2008 and October 2009. Associations between numeracy and caloric and macronutrient intakes were examined with linear regression models. RESULTS: Patients with lower numeracy consumed a higher percentage of calories from carbohydrates and lower percentages from protein and fat. However, no differences in energy consumption or the percentage of energy intake owing to carbohydrates, fat, or protein were observed in adjusted analyses. Patients with lower numeracy were significantly more likely to report extremely high or low energy intake inconsistent with standard dietary intake. CONCLUSIONS: Numeracy was not associated with dietary intake in adjusted analyses. Low numeracy was associated with inaccurate dietary reporting. Providers who take dietary histories in patients with diabetes may need to consider numeracy in their assessment of dietary intake.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Diet , Dietary Carbohydrates/metabolism , Energy Intake , Health Literacy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Educational Measurement , Educational Status , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Literacy/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Mathematics , Middle Aged , Nutrition Assessment , Patient Education as Topic , Primary Health Care , Reading , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tennessee/epidemiology , Texas/epidemiology
4.
Diabetes Educ ; 35(2): 233-6, 238-41, 244-5, 2009.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19240246

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Diabetes self-management education is an important component of comprehensive diabetes care. Patients with low health literacy and numeracy may have difficulty translating information from traditional diabetes educational programs and materials into effective self-care. METHODS: To address this potential barrier to successful diabetes teaching and counseling, the authors developed the Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit (DLNET). CONCLUSION: The DLNET is composed of 24 interactive modules covering standard diabetes care topics that can be customized to individual patient needs and used by all members of the multidisciplinary diabetes care team. The material's content and formatting aims to improve the ease of use for diabetes patients with low literacy and numeracy by adhering to a lower text reading level, using illustrations for key concepts, and color-coding and other accommodations to guide patients through instructions for self-care. Individual sections of the DLNET may be provided to patients for initial teaching, as well as for reinforcement. Although designed for lower literacy and numeracy skills, the DLNET provides unique materials to facilitate diabetes education for all patients.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/rehabilitation , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Blood Glucose/analysis , Counseling , Curriculum , Diet, Diabetic , Educational Status , Humans , Insulin/administration & dosage , Insulin/therapeutic use , Nutritional Status , Reference Values
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...