{"title":"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?","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":"{\"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}","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}
What do self-reported social risk and community-level social contextual factors tell us about diabetes self-management?
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).