The DISC (Diabetes in Social Context) Study-evaluation of a culturally sensitive social network intervention for diabetic patients in lower socioeconomic groups: a study protocol

BMC Public Health

Karien Stronks⁴  Giel Nijpels²  Barend JC Middelkoop³  Diana Geraci⁴  Paul JM Uitewaal¹  Vera Nierkens⁴  Charlotte Vissenberg⁴ 

[1] The Hague's Public Health Department, The Hague, The Netherlands;VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands;Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Diabetes self-management;    Social network intervention;    Surinamese patients;    Moroccan;    Turkish;    Lower socioeconomic groups;    Type 2 diabetes;   

Others  :  1163776
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-199

 received in 2012-02-23, accepted in 2012-03-19,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Compared to those in higher socioeconomic groups, diabetic patients in lower socioeconomic groups have less favourable metabolic control and experience more diabetes-related complications. They encounter specific barriers that hinder optimal diabetes self-management, including a lack of social support and other psychosocial mechanisms in their immediate social environments. Powerful Together with Diabetes is a culturally sensitive social network intervention specifically targeted to ethnic Dutch, Moroccan, Turkish, and Surinamese diabetic patients in lower socioeconomic groups. For ten months, patients will participate in peer support groups in which they will share experiences, support each other in maintaining healthy lifestyles, and learn skills to resist social pressure. At the same time, their significant others will also receive an intervention, aimed at maximizing support for and minimizing the negative social influences on diabetes self-management. This study aims to test the effectiveness of Powerful Together with Diabetes.

Methods/Design

We will use a quasi-experimental design with an intervention group (Group 1) and two comparison groups (Groups 2 and 3), N = 128 in each group. Group 1 will receive Powerful Together with Diabetes. Group 2 will receive Know your Sugar, a six-week group intervention that does not focus on the participants' social environments. Group 3 receives standard care only. Participants in Groups 1 and 2 will be interviewed and physically examined at baseline, 3, 10, and 16 months. We will compare their haemoglobin A1C levels with the haemoglobin A1C levels of Group 3. Main outcome measures are haemoglobin A1C, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, health-related, and intermediate outcome measures. We will conduct a process evaluation and a qualitative study to gain more insights into the intervention fidelity, feasibility, and changes in the psychosocial mechanism in the participants' immediate social environments.

Discussion

With this study, we will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a culturally sensitive social network intervention for lower socioeconomic groups. Furthermore, we will study how to enable these patients to optimally manage their diabetes. This trial is registered in the Dutch Trial Register: NTR1886

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Vissenberg et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bachmann MO, Eachus J, Hopper CD, Smith GD, Propper C, Pearson NJ, et al.: Socio-economic inequalities in diabetes complications, control, attitudes and health service use: a cross-sectional study. Diabetic Medicine 2003, 20:921-929.
• [2]Connolly V, Unwin N, Sherriff P, Bilous R, Kelly W: Diabetes prevalence and socioeconomic status: a population based study showing increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in deprived areas. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2000, 54:173-177.
• [3]Espelt A, Borrell C, Roskam AJ, Rodriguez-Sanz M, Stirbu I, Dalmau-Bueno A, et al.: Socioeconomic inequalities in diabetes mellitus across Europe at the beginning of the 21st century. Diabetologia 2008, 51:1971-1979.
• [4]Heisler M, Smith DM, Hayward RA, Krein SL, Kerr EA: How well do patients' assessments of their diabetes self-management correlate with actual glycemic control and receipt of recommended diabetes services? Diabetes Care 2003, 26:738-743.
• [5]Onwudiwe NC, Mullins CD, Winston RA, Shaya FT, Pradel FG, Laird A, et al.: Barriers to Self-Management of Diabetes: A Qualitative Study Among Low-Income Minority Diabetics. Ethnicity & Disease 2011, 21:27-32.
• [6]Wolff K, Cavanaugh K, Malone R, Hawk V, Gregory BP, Davis D, et al.: The Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit (DLNET) Materials to Facilitate Diabetes Education and Management in Patients With Low Literacy and Numeracy Skills. Diabetes Educator 2009, 35:233-245.
• [7]Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, Wang F, Osmond D, Daher C, et al.: Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 288:475-482.
• [8]Norris SL, Lau J, Smith SJ, Schmid CH, Engelgau MM: Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes-A meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care 2002, 25:1159-1171.
• [9]Norris SL, Engelgau MM, Narayan KMV: Effectiveness of self management training in type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2002, 24:561-587.
• [10]Eakin EG, Bull SS, Glasgow RE, Mason M: Reaching those most in need: a review of diabetes self-management interventions in disadvantaged populations. Diabetes-Metabolism Research and Reviews 2002, 18:26-35.
• [11]Glazier RH, Bajcar J, Kennie NR, Willson K: A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Care 2006, 29:1675-1688.
• [12]Lanting LC, Joung IMA, Vogel I, Bootsma AH, Lamberts SWJ, Mackenbach JP: Ethnic differences in outcomes of diabetes care and the role of self-management behavior. Patient Education and Counseling 2008, 72:146-154.
• [13]Madden MH, Tomsik P, Terchek J, Navracruz L, Reichsman A, Clark TC, et al.: Keys to Successful Diabetes Self-management for Uninsured Patients: Social Support, Observational Learning, and Turning Points: A Safety Net Providers' Strategic Alliance Study. Journal of the National Medical Association 2011, 103:257-264.
• [14]Riley EM, Glasgow RE, Eakin EG: Resources for health: A social-ecological intervention for supporting self-management of chronic conditions. Journal of Health Psychology 2001, 6:693-705.
• [15]Van Scoyoc EE, Dewalt DA: Interventions to Improve Diabetes Outcomes for People With Low Literacy and Numeracy: A Systematic Literature Review. Diabetes Spectrum 2010, 23:228-237.
• [16]Marlatt GA, Donovan DM: Relapse Prevention. Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008.
• [17]Gallant MP: The influence of social support on chronic illness self-management: A review and directions for research. Health Education & Behavior 2003, 30:170-195.
• [18]Field J: Social Capital. Second edition. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2008.
• [19]Erickson GD: A Framework and Themes for Social Network Intervention. Family Process 1984, 23:187-197.
• [20]Berkman LF, Glass T: Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support, and Health. In Social Epidemiology. Edited by Berkman LS, Kawachi I. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
• [21]Rosland AM, Piette JD, Heisler M: The impact of family behaviors and communication patterns on chronic illness outcomes: a systematic review. J Behav Med 2011, 1-19. Online first 21 June 2011
• [22]Meeuwsen MJG, Van Wijk EEC, Hoogendam K, Ronteltap A, Van't Riet J: Eetgewoonten van laag opgeleiden. Den Haag, LEI; 2010. Ref Type: Report
• [23]Power E: An introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's key theoretical concepts. Journal for the Study of Food and Society 1999, 3:48-52.
• [24]Lawrence W, Skinner C, Haslam C, Robinson S, Inskip H, Barker D, et al.: Why women of lower educational attainment struggle to make healthier food choices: The importance of psychological and social factors. Psychology & Health 2009, 24:1003-1020.
• [25]Bartholomew KL, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH: Plannning Health Promotion Programs. An Intervention Mapping Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bassey; 2006.
• [26]Bandura A: Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. 1986.
• [27]Bandura A: Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall; 1977.
• [28]Marlatt GA, Gordon JR: Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford Press; 1985.
• [29]Lazarus RS, Folkman S: Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.; 1984.
• [30]Clark NM: Management of chronic disease by patients. Annual Review of Public Health 2003, 24:289-313.
• [31]Ajzen I: Attitudes, personality and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press; 1988.
• [32]Abraham C, Sheeran P, Johnston M: From health beliefs to self-regulation: Theoretical, advances in the psychology of action control. Psychology & Health 1998, 13:569-591.
• [33]Heany CA, Israel BA: Social networks and social support. In Health Behavior and health education. Theory, research and practice. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:189-211.
• [34]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: The transtheoretical approach: crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood IL: Dow Jones-Irwin; 1984.
• [35]Burroughs AR, Visscher WA, Haney TL, Efland JR, Barefoot JC, Williams RB, et al.: Community recruitment process by race, gender, and SES gradient: Lessons learned from the community health and stress evaluation (CHASE) study experience. Journal of Community Health 2003, 28:421-437.
• [36]Keyzer JF, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M, Birch S, Kuenneth C, Nuovo J, et al.: Recruitment strategies for minority participation: Challenges and cost lessons from the power interview. Ethnicity & Disease 2005, 15:395-406.
• [37]Levkoff S, Sanchez H: Lessons learned about minority recruitment and retention from the Centers on Minority Aging and Health Promotion. Gerontologist 2003, 43:18-26.
• [38]Marcantonio ER, Aneja J, Jones RN, Alsop DC, Fong TG, Crosby GJ, et al.: Maximizing clinical research participation in vulnerable older persons: Identification of barriers and motivators. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2008, 56:1522-1527.
• [39]Rutten GEHM, De Grauw WJC, Nijpels G, et al. (Eds): NHG-Standaard Diabetes mellitus type 2 In Huisarts en Wetenschap 2006., 49
• [40]Bott U, Muhlhauser I, Overmann H, Berger M: Validation of a diabetes-specific quality-of-life scale for patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998, 21:757-769.
• [41]Rothman RL, Malone R, Bryant B, Wolfe C, Padgett P, Dewalt DA, et al.: The spoken knowledge in low literacy in diabetes scale-A diabetes knowledge scale for vulnerable patients. Diabetes Educator 2005, 31:215-224.
• [42]Iannotti RJ, Schneider S, Nansel TR, Haynie DL: Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and diabetes self-management in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 2006, 27:98-105.
• [43]van der Bijl J, van Poelgeest-Eeltink A, Shortridge-Baggett L: The psychometric properties of the diabetes management self-efficacy scale for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999, 30:352-359.
• [44]Kara M, van der Bijl JJ, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Asti T, Erguney S: Cross-cultural adaptation of the diabetes management self-efficacy scale for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Scale development. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2006, 43:611-621.
• [45]Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, barrera M, Strycker LA: Assessment of problem-solving: A key to successful diabetes self-management. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2004, 27:477-490.
• [46]Harper R: The Measurement of social capital in the United Kingdom. London, Office for National Statistics; 2002. Ref Type: Report
• [47]Ruston D, Akinrodoye L: Social Capital Question Bank. Questions from social capital surveys included in the social capital survey matrix 2002. London, Office of National Statistics; 2002. Ref Type: Report
• [48]Bearman KJ, La Greca AM: Assessing friend support of adolescents' diabetes care: The Diabetes Social Support Questionnaire- friends version. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2002, 27:417-428.
• [49]La Greca AM, Bearman KJ: The Diabetes Social Support Questionnaire-Family Version: Evaluating adolescents' diabetes-specific support from family members. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2002, 27:665-676.
• [50]Blue CL: Does the theory of planned behavior identify diabetes-related cognitions for intention to be physically active and eat a healthy diet? Public Health Nursing 2007, 24:141-150.
• [51]Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB: The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
• [52]D'Agostino RB: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 1998, 17:2265-2281.
• [53]Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W: Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. In Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Edited by Ritchie J, Lewis J. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2003.
• [54]Spencer L, Ritchie L, O'Connor W: Analysis: Practices, Principles and Processes. In Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Edited by Ritchie J, Lewis J. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2003.