Diabetes prevention among American Indians: the role of self-efficacy, risk perception, numeracy and cultural identity

Abstract Background According to the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) framework, classifying people according to their perceptions of disease risk and their self-efficacy beliefs allows us to predict their likelihood for engaging in preventive behaviors. Health interventions can then be targeted according to RPA group. We applied the framework to type 2 diabetes prevention behaviors among American Indians and expanded it to include culture and numeracy. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we surveyed a sample of Northern Plains American Indians in a reservation community setting on self-reported perceptions of diabetes risk, objective diabetes risk, self-efficacy, engagement in healthy behaviors, knowledge of diabetes risk factors, and covariates including demographics, numeracy, and cultural identity. We used the RPA framework to classify participants into four groups based on their perceptions of risk and self-efficacy. Analyses of variance and covariance estimated inter-group differences in behaviors associated with type 2 diabetes prevention. Results Among 128 participants, our only finding consistent with the RPA framework was that self-efficacy and risk perception predicted knowledge about diabetes risk factors. We found limited evidence for the influence of cultural identity within the RPA framework. Overall, participants had lower numeracy skills which tended to be associated with inaccurate perceptions of higher levels of risk. Conclusions The theoretical framework may benefit from inclusion of further contextual factors that influence these behaviors. Attention to numeracy skills stands out in our study as an important influence on the RPA framework, highlighting the importance of attending to numeracy when targeting and tailoring risk information to participants segmented by the RPA framework

Access to Care and Diabetes Management Among Older American Indians With Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To examine the relationship between health care access and diabetes management among a geographically diverse sample of American Indians (AIs) aged 50 and older with type 2 diabetes. Method: We examined the relationship between access to care and diabetes management, as measured by HbA1c, using 1998-1999 data from the Strong Heart Family Study. A series of bivariate and multivariate linear models examined the relationships between nine access-related variables and HbA1c levels. Results: In bivariate analyses, out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher HbA1c levels. No other access-related characteristics were significantly associated with diabetes management in bivariate or in multivariate models. Discussion: Access-related barriers were not associated with worse diabetes management in multivariate analyses. The study concludes with implications for clinicians working with AI populations to enhance opportunities for diabetes management. </jats:p

Caregiving among American Indians and Alaska Natives with cancer

PURPOSE: Caregivers are an important source of support for oncology patients during cancer diagnosis and treatment, often helping patients manage barriers to care. Our study had three goals: to describe the characteristics of caregivers for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) oncology patients; to assess the similarities and differences between the perceptions of caregivers and patients regarding barriers to cancer care; and to compare AI/AN caregivers to non-AI/AN caregivers on perceived barriers to cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a structured interview that assessed perceived barriers to cancer care with a paired sample of 98 adult caregivers and 98 AI/AN oncology patients and to assess the degree of agreement between these two groups. We also investigated whether AI/AN and non-AI/AN caregivers had differing perceptions of barriers to cancer care. RESULTS: Caregivers reported that their role was very meaningful and not highly stressful. Caregivers and patients agreed 70% of the time on specific barriers to cancer care. Both groups overwhelmingly reported financial and family or work issues as major barriers to care, whereas trust in providers was the least frequently endorsed barrier. A comparison of AI/AN and non-AI/AN caregivers revealed that AI/AN caregivers identified confidentiality among clinical staff as a significant barrier, whereas non-AI/AN caregivers perceived financial barriers as more significant. CONCLUSIONS: Finances, family, and work are perceived as the largest barriers to the receipt of cancer care for AI/AN oncology patients. Both patients and caregivers trusted health care providers. Assessing barriers to care early in the assessment process may result in better engagement with cancer treatment by patients and their caregivers