What do self-reported social risk and community-level social contextual factors tell us about diabetes self-management?

Sarah Alowdi, D. Jones, J. Parra
{"title":"What do self-reported social risk and community-level social contextual factors tell us about diabetes self-management?","authors":"Sarah Alowdi, D. Jones, J. Parra","doi":"10.1370/afm.20.s1.2854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Higher exposure to social risks, such as food and housing insecurity are linked to worse outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Social risks can be assessed at the individual-level (self-report of personal experience) and in aggregate at the community level (e.g. census data). What is less understood is how self-reported vs. community level information compare to one another, and which is most relevant for understanding individuals’ T2DM management. Objective: To exam ine the degree of overlap between self-reported social risk (SRSR) and community social contextual factors (CSCF), and document to what extent each is associated with T2DM management. Study Design: Cross-sectional survey geocoded and linked to publicly available data on CSCF. Setting: 12 community health centers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Population: 668 adults with T2DM. Measures: SRSR was assessed through four binary (yes/no) items related to housing instability, food insecurity, access to transportation, and difficulties paying bills. CSCF was assessed by the California Healthy Places Index (HPI), a measure that combines 25 community characteristics from five domains (neighborhood and built environment, health/health care, social/community context, education, economic stability) into a single indexed percentile score (0-100%). T2DM management outcomes included HbA1c from medical records, self-reported missed medication days and depression symptoms (PHQ8). Results: 38.2% (n=252) of our sample endorsed ≥ 1 SRSR. HPI quartiles yielded the following distribution: Q1=31.7% (n=211); Q2=30.3% (n=202); Q3=24.0% (n=160); Q4=14.0% (n=93). 10.4% of individuals in Q4 endorsed ≥1 SRSR (vs. 34.7% in Q1).","PeriodicalId":163371,"journal":{"name":"Social determinants and vulnerable populations","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social determinants and vulnerable populations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.2854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Higher exposure to social risks, such as food and housing insecurity are linked to worse outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Social risks can be assessed at the individual-level (self-report of personal experience) and in aggregate at the community level (e.g. census data). What is less understood is how self-reported vs. community level information compare to one another, and which is most relevant for understanding individuals’ T2DM management. Objective: To exam ine the degree of overlap between self-reported social risk (SRSR) and community social contextual factors (CSCF), and document to what extent each is associated with T2DM management. Study Design: Cross-sectional survey geocoded and linked to publicly available data on CSCF. Setting: 12 community health centers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Population: 668 adults with T2DM. Measures: SRSR was assessed through four binary (yes/no) items related to housing instability, food insecurity, access to transportation, and difficulties paying bills. CSCF was assessed by the California Healthy Places Index (HPI), a measure that combines 25 community characteristics from five domains (neighborhood and built environment, health/health care, social/community context, education, economic stability) into a single indexed percentile score (0-100%). T2DM management outcomes included HbA1c from medical records, self-reported missed medication days and depression symptoms (PHQ8). Results: 38.2% (n=252) of our sample endorsed ≥ 1 SRSR. HPI quartiles yielded the following distribution: Q1=31.7% (n=211); Q2=30.3% (n=202); Q3=24.0% (n=160); Q4=14.0% (n=93). 10.4% of individuals in Q4 endorsed ≥1 SRSR (vs. 34.7% in Q1).
自我报告的社会风险和社区水平的社会背景因素告诉我们关于糖尿病自我管理的什么信息?
背景:面临更高的社会风险,如食物和住房不安全,与2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的预后更差有关。社会风险可以在个人层面进行评估(个人经验的自我报告),也可以在社区层面进行总体评估(例如人口普查数据)。人们不太了解的是,自我报告和社区水平的信息如何相互比较,以及哪一点与了解个人的T2DM管理最相关。目的:检查自我报告的社会风险(SRSR)和社区社会背景因素(CSCF)之间的重叠程度,并记录它们与T2DM管理的关联程度。研究设计:横断面调查,地理编码,并链接到CSCF的公开数据。环境:旧金山湾区的12个社区卫生中心。人群:668名成年T2DM患者。测量方法:SRSR通过四个二元(是/否)项目进行评估,这些项目与住房不稳定、食品不安全、交通便利和支付账单困难有关。CSCF由加州健康场所指数(HPI)进行评估,该指数将来自五个领域(邻里和建筑环境、健康/医疗保健、社会/社区背景、教育、经济稳定性)的25个社区特征结合为一个单一的指数百分位数分数(0-100%)。T2DM管理结果包括医疗记录中的HbA1c、自我报告的未服药天数和抑郁症状(PHQ8)。结果:38.2% (n=252)的样本的SRSR≥1。HPI四分位数的分布如下:Q1=31.7% (n=211);Q2 = 30.3% (n = 202);第三季度= 24.0% (n = 160);第四季度= 14.0% (n = 93)。第四季度10.4%的个体认可SRSR≥1(第一季度为34.7%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信