Couple-based lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes: protocol for a randomised pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is prevalent among US adults. Lifestyle interventions that modify health behaviours prevent or delay progression to diabetes among individuals at high risk. Despite the well-documented influence of individuals' social context on their health, evidence-based type 2 diabetes prevention interventions do not systematically incorporate participants' romantic partners. Involving partners of individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes in primary prevention may improve engagement and outcomes of programmes. The randomised pilot trial protocol described in this manuscript will evaluate a couple-based lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes. The objective of the trial is to describe the feasibility of the couple-based intervention and the study protocol to guide planning of a definitive randomised clinical trial (RCT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We used community-based participatory research principles to adapt an individual diabetes prevention curriculum for delivery to couples. This parallel two-arm pilot study will include 12 romantic couples in which at least one partner (ie, 'target individual') is at risk for type 2 diabetes. Couples will be randomised to either the 2021 version of the CDC's PreventT2 curriculum designed for delivery to individuals (six couples), or PreventT2 Together, the adapted couple-based curriculum (six couples). Participants and interventionists will be unblinded, but research nurses collecting data will be blinded to treatment allocation. Feasibility of the couple-based intervention and the study protocol will be assessed using both quantitative and qualitative measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of Utah IRB (#143079). Findings will be shared with researchers through publications and presentations. We will collaborate with community partners to determine the optimal strategy for communicating findings to community members. Results will inform a subsequent definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05695170.

Applying best practices for health disparities work to create a treatment adaptation framework for culturally diverse communities: A mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVE: Integrating best practices for health disparities to adapt evidence-based treatments is imperative to adequately meet the needs of diverse cultures, particularly ones that therapists can apply flexibility across multiple diverse communities. METHOD: Using a mixed-methods, community-engaged approach, we examined how a range of community participants (N = 169) defined mental health, perceived barriers to treatment, and used culturally based coping methods to manage their mental health. Phase 1 (n = 49) included qualitative focus group data from five distinct racial/ethnic communities (African immigrants/refugees, Black/African Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians). Phase 2 included quantitative surveys from members of four of these communities (n = 59) and the frontline providers serving them (n = 61). RESULTS: The communities and providers highlighted chronic worry and distress related to daily activities as primary treatment concerns. Further, this mixed-methods data informed our proposed best practice treatment adaptation framework using chronic worry as an example. CONCLUSION: The main aims of this study were to exemplify best practices for addressing mental health inequities in communities of color in terms of (a) conducting health disparities research and (b) applying a treatment adaptation framework for culturally responsive clinical care. Specific features of how this framework was conceived and applied provide a unique and critical view into integrating best practices to address health disparities in diverse communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Developing an equitable intervention approach for communities of color: mental health and co-occurring physical health concerns in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated disparities in mental health treatment for people of color in the USA. Meeting the needs of those most burdened by this disparity will require swift and tactical action in partnership with these communities. The purpose of this paper is to describe how a community-based participatory research approach was employed to assess the priorities and needs of four communities of color (African immigrant, Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and Pacific Islander) in a major U.S. city. A brief quantitative survey devised jointly by community leaders and the research team was deployed to community members (N = 59) in the fall of 2020. The most endorsed mental health issues across the communities were excessive worry (51%) and stress regarding COVID-19, racism, and immigration policies (49%). The most endorsed physical health concerns included sleep difficulties (44%), headaches, and backaches (each 39%). Physical symptoms predicted the endorsement of a mental health issue above and beyond COVID-19-related hardships, multiplying the odds of reporting an issue by 1.73 per physical health concern endorsed. Based on these findings, the community-research team conceptualized and proposed an evidence-based, effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-2 intervention approach for chronic worry and daily stress. This paper highlights detail on how the community-research team arrived at the proposed multilevel intervention that addresses community-stated barriers to mental health treatment (e.g., preferring trusted health workers to deliver emotional health treatments) and considers the burden of the additional stressful context of COVID-19.

Diverse community members and university researchers collaborated on the development of an equitable intervention approach for community members' mental health needs.

Barriers to participation and lifestyle change among lower versus higher income participants in the National Diabetes Prevention Program: lifestyle coach perspectives.

Individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have lesser participation and success in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP). Barriers to NDPP participation and lifestyle change were examined from the perspective of Lifestyle Coaches serving lower versus higher income participants. Lifestyle Coaches (n = 211) who serve lower income (n = 82) or higher income (n = 129) participants reported on observed barriers to NDPP participation and lifestyle change and ranked the three most significant barriers to (a) NDPP participation and (b) lifestyle change. Group differences in number/type of barriers were examined using t-tests and chi-square analyses, and ranking differences were examined using multilevel cumulative logit models. Lifestyle Coaches of lower income (versus higher income) participants reported two additional barriers on average. Ranked barriers to participation were similar between groups, and notably included physical/emotional barriers. However, for lifestyle change, those serving lower income groups were more likely to rank lack of access to healthy grocery stores, but less likely to rank low motivation and lack of family support. Lifestyle Coaches of lower income participants were less likely to rank long wait period prior to enrollment as the most significant barrier to participation, and to rank lack of time off from work as the most significant barrier to lifestyle change. Despite more barriers observed among lower versus higher income participants, overlap in the most significant barriers highlights the potential utility of widely addressing common barriers among NDPP participants. In particular, physical and emotional barriers have been overlooked, yet deserve greater attention in future research and practice.

The National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) has less successfully reached and changed the lifestyles of lower income (versus higher income) adults in the USA who are at high risk for type 2 diabetes. In a nationwide online survey, we asked Lifestyle Coaches who deliver the NDPP to identify up to 37 potential barriers to participation and success that they had observed among their participants. We then compared the number, type, and rankings of the most significant barriers to participation and success in the NDPP from the perspective of Lifestyle Coaches estimating the majority of their participants had lower versus higher incomes. Lifestyle Coaches delivering the NDPP to lower income participants reported an average of two additional barriers to participation and success than those delivering the program to higher income participants. The barriers ranked among the most significant to NDPP participation and lifestyle change were generally similar among Lifestyle Coaches working with lower versus higher income participants. Top-ranked barriers included physical/emotional symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression) as well as barriers previously reported in studies focused on NDPP participants. It is critical that barriers be carefully evaluated and addressed to improve the nationwide impact of the NDPP.

Promises and Pitfalls of Dyads in the National Diabetes Prevention Program: Lifestyle Coach Perspectives.

PURPOSE: To describe Lifestyle Coach perceptions of dyads (i.e., family members and/or friends) in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP). DESIGN: Qualitative evaluation of cross-sectional survey responses. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: Lifestyle Coaches (n=253) with experience teaching at least one in-person year-long NDPP cohort at a CDC-recognized organization. MEASURES: Survey included items on background and experience with dyadic approach, as well as open-ended items on the benefits and challenges observed when working with dyads in the NDPP. ANALYSIS: Lifestyle Coach background and experience were analyzed descriptively in SPSS. Open-ended responses were content coded in ATLAS.ti using qualitative description, and then grouped into categories. RESULTS: Most Lifestyle Coaches (n=210; 83.0%) reported experience delivering the NDPP to dyads. Benefits of a dyadic approach included having a partner in lifestyle change, superior outcomes and increased engagement, and positive "ripple effects." Challenges included difficult relationship dynamics, differences between dyad members, negative "ripple effects," and logistics. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle Coaches described a number of benefits, as well as some challenges, with a dyadic approach to the NDPP. Given the concordance between close others in lifestyle and other risk factors for type 2 diabetes, utilizing a dyadic approach in the NDPP has the potential to increase engagement, improve outcomes, and extend the reach of the program.