Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Clinical Diabetes

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Quality Improvement Sucess Stories
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • Clinical Compendia
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Advertising
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Journal Policies
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Diabetes
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Quality Improvement Sucess Stories
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • Clinical Compendia
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Advertising
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Journal Policies
Feature Articles

A Culturally Tailored Community Health Worker Intervention Leads to Improvement in Patient-Centered Outcomes for Immigrant Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

  1. Nadia S. Islam1,
  2. Laura C. Wyatt1,
  3. M.D. Taher1,
  4. Lindsey Riley2,
  5. S. Darius Tandon3,
  6. Michael Tanner4,
  7. B. Runi Mukherji5 and
  8. Chau Trinh-Shevrin1
  1. 1Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
  2. 2The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, New York, NY
  3. 3Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
  4. 4Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
  5. 5Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Old Westbury, Old Westbury, NY
  1. Corresponding author: Nadia S. Islam, nadia.islam{at}nyumc.org
Clinical Diabetes 2018 Apr; 36(2): 100-111. https://doi.org/10.2337/cd17-0068
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

IN BRIEF This article reports results from a patient-centered intervention to improve management of type 2 diabetes in the New York City Bangladeshi community. The DREAM (Diabetes Research, Education, and Action for Minorities) intervention is a randomized trial among Bangladeshi immigrants with type 2 diabetes comparing those enrolled in a community health worker (CHW) intervention to those in usual care. Participants in the intervention group received five group-based educational sessions and two one-on-one visits delivered by a trained CHW, whereas those in the control group received only the first group educational session. Main outcomes include changes in A1C, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, weight, BMI, and patient-centered outcomes such as knowledge and behavior related to type 2 diabetes management.

South Asians, making up one-fifth of the world’s total population (1), face a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes. More than 70 million individuals in South Asia have type 2 diabetes (2); by 2030, this number will be ∼121 million (3–6). Among South Asian countries, Bangladesh has a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes, with 8.4 million Bangladeshis (10% of the total population) living with the disease; by 2030 this rate is projected to increase to 13% (7,8). Additionally, Bangladesh was among the top 10 countries with the highest numbers of people with type 2 diabetes in 2010 and is predicted to remain in this group through 2030 (9).

There are more than 3.4 million South Asians in the United States, and Bangladeshis are one of the fastest growing immigrant groups (10,11). A majority of Bangladeshis live in New York City (NYC), where the group experienced a 142% increase in growth (from 27,804 to 67,176) between 2007 to 2013 (12,13).

Although population-based estimates of type 2 diabetes prevalence in the U.S. Bangladeshi population do not exist, two studies using A1C measurements found high rates of diabetes among all South Asians; the NYC Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found an age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes of 35.4% among foreign-born South Asians, and the MASALA (Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America) study in California found 29% of South Asians to have diabetes (14,15). Community-based studies of Bangladeshi immigrants in NYC have reported similarly high rates of diabetes compared to the general population, ranging from 15 to 24% (10).

The high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the Bangladeshi population may be further influenced by their unique sociodemographic profile. For example, Bangladeshis have a high rate of limited English proficiency compared to other subgroups; about 53% of NYC Bangladeshis speak English less than “very well,” as compared to the citywide limited English proficiency rate of 23%. NYC Bangladeshis are among the poorest of the Asian subgroups; ∼33% of Bangladeshis in NYC live below the poverty line, compared to the citywide rate of 20%. NYC Bangladeshis also have lower rates of high school completion and annual household income compared to citywide numbers (16).

Studies have found that the impact of socioeconomic status, language, and culture plays a significant role in diabetes management disparities for the Bangladeshi population. For example, South Asians face barriers to understanding and receiving information about type 2 diabetes from health care providers and are less likely to receive care that aligns with standards of diabetes management (17). There is a paucity of culturally appropriate and in-language resources and health information on type 2 diabetes management for this population. Poor medication adherence related to language and health literacy barriers has also been identified as a major barrier to type 2 diabetes management (17,18). Additionally, systemic issues such as the difficulty in navigating complex health care systems and the concentration of the Bangladeshi populations in sedentary, low-wage workforces in urban areas such as NYC have also been identified as barriers for type 2 diabetes management for this community (18).

Given the disproportionate burden of type 2 diabetes and barriers to management faced by the Bangladeshi population, patient-centered approaches that account for the cultural, linguistic, and social context of disease are needed to mitigate the effects of type 2 diabetes. Community health workers (CHWs) play a vital role in linking diverse and underserved populations to health and social services and can facilitate patients’ active involvement in their own care by providing culturally appropriate support. CHWs are indigenous to the communities they serve; they understand the values and norms of the community, making them a trusted source of information (19,20). With the advent of the patient-centered medical home model, primary care practices increasingly aim to work in an integrated, coordinated manner for patients (21). A growing evidence base suggests that CHWs provide a low-cost and cost-effective approach to improving care and adherence for patients with chronic disease (22–25). A recent review of the impact of CHWs on type 2 diabetes management found that, on average, CHW interventions produce a 0.2% reduction in A1C, with the greatest reduction (≥0.5%) among individuals at the most elevated levels (26). Our own work has demonstrated that a culturally adapted CHW-led intervention is acceptable and efficacious in improving A1C, weight loss, self-efficacy and social support, and health behaviors for Bangladeshi patients with type 2 diabetes. Outside of this pilot study, no known randomized, controlled trial has been conducted within the NYC Bangladeshi community evaluating the efficacy of a CHW intervention to improve type 2 diabetes management (27).

The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of a CHW-led patient-centered lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes management among Bangladeshis in NYC. We examine the intervention effect on changes in A1C, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, weight, BMI, and patient-centered outcomes such as knowledge and behaviors related to type 2 diabetes management.

Research Design and Methods

The DREAM (Diabetes Research, Education, and Action for Minorities) Project employed a two-arm randomized, controlled trial design. Individuals were eligible to participate in the intervention if they self-identified as Bangladeshi, were between 21 and 75 years of age, resided in the NYC metropolitan area, and had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes defined by an A1C ≥6.5%, as verified by medical record. Individuals were excluded from participation if they reported being on renal dialysis, had an acute or terminal illness or serious mental illness, had a recent history of an acute medical problem or admission to a hospital, had a poor short-term prognosis, had previously participated in a similar intervention, or had plans to move away or travel outside the United States for an extended period of time. All participants provided written informed consent before study enrollment. Human subjects approval was obtained in 2011, and the trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02041598).

Participants were recruited from March 2011 through February 2016 through clinic and community settings. After providing consent and completing a screening survey, participants were stratified by sex and age (≥50 or <50 years) and randomized to either the intervention or control group using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, versions 21.0 and 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y.) in a 1:1 ratio; spousal/familial dyads were randomized to the same study arm based on assignment of the wife or original enrollee. Multiple randomizations took place within each round of recruitment, with a total of seven recruitment and intervention rounds.

The intervention was delivered by four trained, bilingual Bangladeshi CHWs—two male and two female—who were active leaders in the community of interest. The intervention consisted of five 2-hour monthly group educational sessions and two one-on-one visits lasting ∼90 min each. The intervention curriculum was culturally and linguistically adapted for Bangladeshi community members based on an existing diabetes management curriculum validated in other minority communities (27). Participants randomized to the control group were invited to attend only the first educational group session, which provided an overview of type 2 diabetes. The subsequent four sessions included group-based education on nutrition and healthy eating, the importance of and strategies for increasing physical activity, potential complications of type 2 diabetes and preventive self-care, and stress management and family support related to diabetes management. All intervention sessions and materials were delivered in Bengali and held in clinical and community settings. Two one-on-one visits were held during the 6-month intervention period at locations convenient to participants, including their home, before or after a doctor’s visit, or another mutually agreed upon location. At these sessions, CHWs engaged in individualized goal-setting for health behavior change and provided culturally appropriate referrals to care as needed. Participant recruitment, CHW recruitment and training, and intervention content and delivery have been previously described in greater detail (19).

Measures

The primary study outcome was glycemic control, measured by A1C. Secondary outcomes included additional physiological measures of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, weight, BMI, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. A1C, LDL, HDL, total cholesterol, and triglycerides were collected from medical records. Height, weight, and blood pressure were collected by CHWs. Measures were collected at baseline and 6 months; the mean interval between baseline and follow-up A1C measures was 6.3 months (SD 2.1). Patient-centered outcomes included type 2 diabetes knowledge, self-reported measures of physical activity and diet, and self-management of diabetes. Diabetes knowledge was assessed with a question on knowledge of A1C, and the mean score of nine questions adapted from the Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Scale (28). Physical activity was assessed with a series of questions assessing self-reported weekly moderate physical activity, self-reported weekly vigorous physical activity, total weekly physical activity (moderate physical activity combined with two times vigorous physical activity, per 2008 physical activity guidelines) (29), confidence in performing physical activity (30), and barriers to performing physical activity. Self-reported diet quality was evaluated using the mean scores of three scales assessing portion control, confidence in maintaining a healthy diet, and barriers to maintaining a healthy diet that were adapted from a previous diabetes weight management study (31). Self-management of diabetes was assessed with a medication adherence scale adapted from the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (32), a question on self-management strategies, and a scale on self-efficacy related to health care (30,33). The exact questions are included in Table S1. Further description of measures and data collection procedures are described elsewhere (19).

Statistical Methods

The study sample size was based on the main clinical outcome measure: decrease in A1C. The primary outcome measure of A1C was estimated by using previous changes observed in a pilot study, as well as in previous research (19,27,34). Control group A1C estimates were based on hospital patients receiving usual care. An absolute difference of 0.3% in A1C between the groups (6.7 vs. 6.4%) with a power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05 could be detected with a total of 120 individuals in each group. We anticipated that 75% of study participants would be followed to completion of the study at 6 months, with ∼96 individuals in each group.

We compared baseline characteristics between the intervention and control groups using Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables and Student’s t test for continuous variables. To test within-group differences between baseline and 6-month follow-up, as well as the proportion with A1C under control at 6-month follow-up, we used paired t tests and McNemar tests for each outcome measure. To assess change across groups for each continuous outcome, we ran generalized estimated equation (GEE) models for repeated measures over time using the GENMOD procedure in SAS to fit generalized linear models, while adjusting for study arm, time point, and the interaction between study arm and time point. Adjusted models were run to also include age and sex. The interaction variable tests the intervention effect and indicates whether there are significant differences in changes in the outcome between intervention and control groups. To assess change across groups for dichotomous outcomes, we ran a GEE model using a binomial distribution, and odds ratios were produced. SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.) was used for all analyses.

Results

A total of 880 individuals were assessed for eligibility; of these, 11% did not meet inclusion criteria, 12% declined to participate, and 27% did not participate for other reasons. Of 336 randomized participants, 176 were allocated to the intervention and 160 were allocated to the control group (Figure 1). A larger number of individuals were enrolled to the intervention group due to multiple randomizations over seven total recruitment and intervention rounds; however, the total sample size required was exceeded for both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the groups at baseline; however, control group participants were significantly more likely than intervention group participants to report more frequent vigorous weekly physical activity and total weekly physical activity (Table 1). Among intervention group participants, 31 (18%) were lost to follow-up, whereas among control group participants, 14 (9%) were lost to follow-up. Final analysis was conducted with 336 individuals; of these, 279 had complete A1C measurements.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

DREAM Program consort diagram.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Baseline Characteristics of All Randomized DREAM Participants

Among individuals in the intervention group, the mean number of sessions completed was four, and the mean number of one-on-one visits completed was two. Intervention completion (defined as completing at least three of five workshops and one of two one-on-one visits) was achieved for 131 (90.3%) intervention participants.

Table 2 presents changes in clinical measurements from baseline to 6-month follow-up by study group. At 6 months, mean A1C decreased by 0.2% (P = 0.063) in the intervention group, whereas no change was seen in the control group; the adjusted intervention effect was –0.2 (P = 0.214). We also ran models stratifying by baseline A1C. Among intervention participants with baseline A1C ≥8.0%, mean A1C decreased by 0.6% (P = 0.015), whereas among control participants with a baseline A1C ≥8.0%, mean A1C decreased by 0.2% (P = 0.396); the adjusted intervention effect among individuals with baseline A1C ≥8.0% was –0.5 (P = 0.165).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Changes in Clinical Measurements of Study Participants From Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up

In addition, we conducted secondary analyses regarding the effect of the intervention on the proportion of participants who achieved A1C reduction and control (Figures 2 and 3). The intervention group was significantly more likely than the control group to demonstrate a decrease in A1C at the 6-month follow-up (55.2 vs. 42.5%, P = 0.035). When stratifying by sex, females in the intervention group were more likely to show a significant decrease in A1C at 6-month follow-up compared to the control group (59.3 vs. 37.7%, P = 0.023), whereas there was not significant difference between groups for males (52.3 vs. 45.7%, P = 0.391). Similarly, the intervention group was more likely than the control group to achieve A1C control at the 6-month follow-up (36.3 vs. 24.6%, P = 0.034). When stratifying by sex, males in the intervention group were more likely than their counterparts in the control group to achieve an A1C <7.0%, whereas there was no significant difference between groups for female participants.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Proportion of study participants in intervention and control groups who decreased A1C at study follow-up.

FIGURE 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3.

Proportion of study participants in intervention and control groups who achieved A1C control at study follow-up.

Mean cholesterol decreased significantly by 10.6 mg/dL for the intervention group (P = 0.004), compared to a decrease of 0.6 mg/dL for the control group (P = 0.878); the adjusted intervention effect was –8.1 mg/dL (P = 0.107). Significant differences in mean weight and BMI were seen for both groups, with greater decreases occurring in the intervention group. The adjusted intervention effect for weight was –1.0 lb (P = 0.212), and the adjusted intervention effect for BMI was –0.2 kg/m2 (P = 0.287). Significant differences in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure were observed for the intervention group but not for the control group; the intervention effect for systolic blood pressure was –1.7 mmHg (P = 0.441), and the intervention effect for diastolic blood pressure was –0.7 mmHg (P = 0.619). No significant differences were shown for mean LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or triglycerides.

Table 3 presents changes in knowledge of type 2 diabetes and behavioral variables from baseline to the 6-month follow-up by study group. Significant intervention effects were shown for type 2 diabetes knowledge (knowledge scale and knowing what A1C is), time spent on weekly physical activity (moderate, vigorous, and recommended activity), confidence regarding physical activity, and type 2 diabetes self-management (e.g., testing blood glucose at least once a week, checking feet every day, managing type 2 diabetes with physical activity, and self-efficacy). Additionally, nearly all variables (excluding weekly vigorous physical activity) were significant across time for the intervention group, and the amount of vigorous weekly physical activity significantly decreased for the control group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3.

Changes in Knowledge of Type 2 Diabetes and Behavioral Variables of Study Participants From Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up

Discussion

In this culturally adapted CHW-led intervention of Bangladeshis with type 2 diabetes, the average decrease in A1C was 0.2% greater for the intervention group than for the control group. Although this difference between groups was not significant, there was a significantly greater percentage of individuals in the intervention group achieving A1C control (<7.0%) at 6 months (36.3 vs. 24.6%), as well as a significantly larger proportion of intervention group participants with decreased A1C at 6 months compared to individuals in the control group (55.2 vs. 42.5%). We also found that individuals in the intervention group with a baseline A1C ≥8.0% experienced a larger average decrease in A1C (mean decrease of 0.6, P <0.05) compared to those reported in previous studies among Latino individuals (26,35–38). Although the intervention effect was not significant for change in clinical measurements, changes in several patient-centered outcomes (diabetes knowledge, weekly physical activity, physical activity confidence, managing diabetes with physical activity, testing blood glucose weekly, and self-efficacy) were significant across intervention and control groups. CHW studies focused on minority groups have similarly shown significant improvement in diabetes knowledge (35,39) and physical activity (36).

The impact of the intervention on behavioral outcomes indicates that culturally adapted CHW models may be particularly important in improving patients’ abilities to play a more active role in the self-management of type 2 diabetes for underserved populations that face linguistic and cultural barriers to care. This has also been demonstrated in a systematic review of the impact of CHW-led diabetes management in Latino communities (37).

Ours is the first study to examine the effect of CHWs on health outcomes in the Bangladeshi American community. Importantly, the study was guided by a coalition of community stakeholders and findings from a formative evaluation that informed the cultural adaptation of the intervention content and delivery. For example, previous work has documented that Bangladeshis face unique barriers to physical activity due to cultural and religious norms (40). Additionally, Bangladeshi immigrants largely maintain their diet of traditional foods after immigration to the United States, but often may increase their consumption of rich “celebration” foods, white rice, and high-fat meats because of greater access (18). The CHW intervention was designed to address these norms related to physical activity and diet in a culturally relevant manner. For example, an at-home instructional DVD was created in Bengali and shared with treatment group participants to encourage physical activity that was both culturally accessible and low in cost. Similarly, educational sessions on dietary changes promoted traditional Bengali foods while encouraging simple substitutions (e.g., brown rice rather than white rice or traditional Bengali fish dishes rather than beef or red-meat dishes), and portion control strategies rather than replacement of favored items. The inclusion of culturally tailored strategies in the intervention likely influenced the adoption of suggested practices and the improvements in physical activity and diet reported by intervention group participants compared to control group participants.

Finally, given the high rates of limited English proficiency and predominantly first-generation immigrant status within the Bangladeshi population, previous work has noted that patients often face substantial communication barriers with clinical providers (18). For this reason, our intervention curriculum provided strategies for communicating more effectively with primary care physicians regarding the diabetes diagnosis and information about patient rights that may have led to the enhanced self-efficacy reported by intervention group participants.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. First, there were incomplete follow-up data for some of the clinical outcomes; although A1C was collected for most individuals through medical records, cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were not available for all study participants. Additionally, some follow-up surveys were collected via phone, so CHWs were not able to collect weight or blood pressure measurements for a subset of participants. Second, randomization was conducted by age and sex, but not by variables that were shown to differ between groups at baseline (e.g., A1C, physical activity, and years with diabetes). Because individuals in the control group had longer disease duration, reported higher rates of physical activity at baseline, and had higher A1C levels, some of the intervention effects may be partially attributed to regression toward the mean. However, control group participants also reported a decrease in exercise between baseline and 6 months, whereas intervention participants experienced an increase, indicating a likely intervention effect. Finally, behavioral measures were assessed through self-report, potentially overestimating results due to social desirability. However, data collection was conducted by personnel other than CHWs where possible to decrease the potential effect of this bias.

Despite these limitations, the study has several strengths of note. This is the first study using a rigorous trial design to test the efficacy of CHW-led intervention for diabetes management in the Bangladeshi population, a growing immigrant group that faces disparities in diabetes prevalence and management. Although our intervention did not demonstrate statistically significant improvements in A1C, we did show significant improvement in many patient-centered outcomes. Our findings are encouraging, especially with regard to improving behavioral outcomes related to diabetes management. The intervention offered culturally tailored diabetes management educational materials for the Bangladeshi American community; thus, behavioral strategies are relevant and likely to be sustained by study participants. Additionally, intervention toolkits and materials can be further disseminated and used in other community settings serving the Bangladeshi community and are being made publicly available as downloadable resources (41).

Practice Implications

The U.S. Community Prevention Services Taskforce has found sufficient evidence for two key strategies to improve diabetes management among patients in which CHWs may play an important role. These include employing multidisciplinary team-based care (42) and offering intensive lifestyle (diet or physical activity) interventions coupled with counseling to patients with diabetes (43). Our study contributes to the evidence base that CHWs are effective members of the health care team to deliver lifestyle interventions in immigrant communities with limited English proficiency and may play a particularly important role in these communities in fostering access to resources both inside and outside of the clinical setting that can affect behavior change (44). Furthermore, given that studies have found that patient-centered factors such as low self-efficacy and low social support (45,46) are associated with higher A1C levels, our findings suggest that CHWs may be particularly useful in influencing mediating factors that contribute to outcomes of clinical significance.

Given the demographic growth and type 2 diabetes burden in the Bangladeshi population, coupled with recent opportunities to integrate CHWs into clinical care through sustainable models, our study findings contribute to the understanding of culturally relevant models for type 2 diabetes management in diverse populations. Past studies have suggested that CHWs are a cost-effective model for diabetes management (47,48). Additionally, previous meta-analyses have shown similar or lower effect sizes for A1C reduction by interventions that may be more resource-intensive than the CHW model presented here, including telemonitoring and interventions using the Chronic Care Model (26). As demand for patient-centered approaches in clinical settings expands, CHW models will have growing clinical and public health relevance in the context of diabetes care for underserved populations.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the DREAM Coalition, as well as numerous interns and volunteers for their support and guidance on this project. They also thank Gulnahar Alam, Mamnunal Haq, and Mursheda Ahmed for their outstanding contributions as DREAM CHWs. The investigators are also especially grateful to all of the community, academic, and health care partners who participated in study coalition and guided implementation and evaluation efforts.

Funding

This publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) grants P60MD000538 and U54MD000538; NIH National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science (NCATS) Grant UL1TR001445; NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) grant R01DK110048; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Grant U48DP001904 and U58DP005621. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH NIMHD, NIH NIDDK, NIH NCATS, or CDC.

Duality of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions

N.S.I. wrote the manuscript. L.C.W. wrote the manuscript and conducted analysis. M.D.T. contributed to background and reviewed the manuscript. L.R., S.D.T., M.T., B.R.M., and C.T.-S. reviewed/edited the manuscript. N.S.I. is the guarantor of this work, and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • This article contains supplementary data online at http://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/cd17-0068/-/DC1.

  • © 2018 by the American Diabetes Association.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 for details.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Misra A,
    2. Ramchandran A,
    3. Jayawardena R,
    4. Shrivastava U,
    5. Snehalatha C
    . Diabetes in South Asians. Diabet Med 2014;31:1153–1162
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Unnikrishnan R,
    2. Anjana RM,
    3. Mohan V
    . Diabetes in South Asians: is the phenotype different? Diabetes 2014;63:53–55
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Choudhury SM,
    2. Brophy S,
    3. Fareedi MA,
    4. Zaman B,
    5. Ahmed P,
    6. Williams R
    . Examining the effectiveness of a peer-led education programme for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in a Bangladeshi population. Diabet Med 2009;26:40–44
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Gujral UP,
    2. Pradeepa R,
    3. Weber MB,
    4. Narayan KM,
    5. Mohan V
    . Type 2 diabetes in South Asians: similarities and differences with white Caucasian and other populations. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2013;1281:51–63
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. O’Neill J,
    2. Tayebjee MH
    . Why are South Asians seemingly protected against the development of atrial fibrillation? A review of current evidence. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2016;27:249–257
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Wang ET,
    2. de Koning L,
    3. Kanaya AM
    . Higher protein intake is associated with diabetes risk in South Asian Indians: the Metabolic Syndrome and Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) study. J Am Coll Nutr 2010;29:130–135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Akter S,
    2. Rahman MM,
    3. Abe SK,
    4. Sultana P
    . Prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes and their risk factors among Bangladeshi adults: a nationwide survey. Bull World Health Organ 2014;92:204–213, 213A.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bhowmik B,
    2. Afsana F,
    3. My Diep L, et al
    . Increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in a rural Bangladeshi population: a population based study for 10 years. Diabetes Metab J 2013;37:46–53
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wild S,
    2. Roglic G,
    3. Green A,
    4. Sicree R,
    5. King H
    . Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1047–1053
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Patel VV,
    2. Rajpathak S,
    3. Karasz A
    . Bangladeshi immigrants in New York City: a community based health needs assessment of a hard to reach population. J Immigr Minor Health 2012;14:767–773
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Asian American Federation, South Asian Americans Leading Together. A Demographic Snapshot of South Asians in the United States. 2012. Available from http://saalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Demographic-Snapshot-Asian-American-Foundation-2012.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2017
  12. 12.↵
    1. U.S. Census Bureau
    . Selected Population Profile in the United States 2005–2007 American Community Survey 3–Year Estimates. Available from https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/07_3YR/S0201/1600000US3651000/popgroup∼033. Accessed 5 December 2017
  13. 13.↵
    1. U.S. Census Bureau
    . Selected Population Profile in the United States 2011–2013 American Community Survey 3–Year Estimates. Available from https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/13_3YR/S0201/1600000US3651000/popgroup∼033. Accessed 5 December 2017
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rajpathak SN,
    2. Gupta LS,
    3. Waddell EN, et al
    . Elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome among Asians and south Asians: results from the 2004 New York City HANES. Ethn Dis 2010;20:225–230
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kanaya AM,
    2. Wassell CL,
    3. Mathur D, et al
    . Prevalence and correlates of diabetes in South Asian Indians in the United States: findings from the Metabolic Syndrome and Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America study and the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2010;8:157–164
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Asian American Federation
    . Profile of New York City’s Bangladeshi Americans: 2013 Edition. Available from http://www.aafny.org/cic/briefs/bangladeshi2013.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2017.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sohal T,
    2. Sohal P,
    3. King-Shier KM,
    4. Khan NA
    . Barriers and facilitators for type 2 diabetes management in South Asians: a systematic review. PloS One 2015;10:e0136202
  18. 18.↵
    1. Islam NS,
    2. Tandon D,
    3. Mukherji R, et al
    . Understanding barriers to and facilitators of diabetes control and prevention in the New York City Bangladeshi community: a mixed-methods approach. Am J Public Health 2012;102:486–490
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Islam N,
    2. Riley L,
    3. Wyatt L, et al
    . Protocol for the DREAM Project (Diabetes Research, Education, and Action for Minorities): a randomized trial of a community health worker intervention to improve diabetic management and control among Bangladeshi adults in NYC. BMC Public Health 2014;14:177–185
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Spencer MS,
    2. Gunter KE,
    3. Palmisano G
    . Community health workers and their value to social work. Social Work 2010;55:169–180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Islam N,
    2. Nadkarni S,
    3. Peretz P, et al
    . Integration of Community Health Workers into Primary Care Health Systems: The Time for New York is Now! NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center. October 2016. Available from https://med.nyu.edu/prevention-research/sites/default/files/prevention-research2/NYU-CUNY%20PRC%20-%20Integration%20of%20CHWs%20into%20Primary%20Care%20Systems.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2017
  22. 22.↵
    1. Adair R,
    2. Wholey DR,
    3. Christianson J,
    4. White KM,
    5. Britt H,
    6. Lee S
    . Improving chronic disease care by adding laypersons to the primary care team: a parallel randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:176–184
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.
    1. Kangovi S,
    2. Mitra N,
    3. Grande D, et al
    . Patient-centered community health worker intervention to improve posthospital outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:535–543
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    1. Matiz LA,
    2. Peretz PJ,
    3. Jacotin PG,
    4. Cruz C,
    5. Ramirez-Diaz E,
    6. Nieto AR
    . The impact of integrating community health workers into the patient-centered medical home. J Prim Care Community Health 2014;5:271–274
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Zahn D,
    2. Matos S,
    3. Findley S,
    4. Hicks A
    . Making the Connection: The Role of Community Health Workers in Health Homes, Health Management Associates, Editor. 2012. Available from http://www.chwnetwork.org/_templates/80/making-the-connection-chw-health-homes-sept-2012.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2017
  26. 26.↵
    1. Palmas W,
    2. March D,
    3. Darakjy S, et al
    . Community health worker interventions to improve glycemic control in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:1004–1012
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Islam NS,
    2. Wyatt LC,
    3. Patel SD, et al
    . Evaluation of a community health worker pilot intervention to improve diabetes management in Bangladeshi immigrants with type 2 diabetes in New York City. Diabetes Educ 2013;39:478–493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Fitzgerald JT,
    2. Funnell MM,
    3. Hess GE, et al
    . The reliability and validity of a brief diabetes knowledge test. Diabetes Care 1998;21:706–710
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    . 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Available from https://health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2017
  30. 30.↵
    1. Parajes F and
    2. Urdan T
    1. Bandura A
    . Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Parajes F and Urdan T (Eds.) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Vol. 5. Greenwich, Conn., Information Age Publishing, 2006, p. 307–337
  31. 31.↵
    1. Dennis l
    1. Wu h
    1. Nothwehr F
    , Dennis l, Wu h. Measurement of behavioral objectives for weight management. Health Educ Behav 2007;34:793–809
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. Morisky DE,
    2. Ang A,
    3. Krousel-Wood M,
    4. Ward HJ
    . Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2008;10:348–354
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaire. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2015-brfss-questionnaire-12-29-14.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2017
  34. 34.↵
    1. Norris SL,
    2. Lau J,
    3. Smith SJ,
    4. Schmid CH,
    5. 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
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Spencer MS,
    2. Gunter KE,
    3. Palmisano G
    . Effectiveness of a community health worker intervention among African American and Latino adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health 2011;101:2253–2260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Rothschild SK,
    2. Martin MA,
    3. Swider SM, et al
    . Mexican American trial of community health workers: a randomized controlled trial of a community health worker intervention for Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Public Health 2014;104:1540–1548
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Little TV,
    2. Wang ML,
    3. Castro EM,
    4. Jimenez J,
    5. Rosal MC
    . Community health worker interventions for Latinos with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Curr Diab Rep 2014;14:558
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Perez-Escamilla R,
    2. Damio G,
    3. Chhabra J, et al
    . Impact of a community health workers-led structured program on blood glucose control among latinos with type 2 diabetes: the DIALBEST trial. Diabetes Care 2015;38:197–205
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Brown SA,
    2. Garcia AA,
    3. Kouzekanani K,
    4. Hanis CL
    . Culturally competent diabetes self-management education for Mexican Americans: the Starr County Border Health Initiative. Diabetes Care 2002;25:259–268
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Riley L,
    2. Mili S,
    3. Trinh-Shevrin C,
    4. Islam N
    . Using qualitative methods to understand physical activity and weight management among Bangladeshis in New York City, 2013. Prev Chronic Dis 2016;13:E87
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    NYU Center for the Study of Asian American Health. DREAM project materials and toolkit. Available from https://med.nyu.edu/asian-health/research/dream/dream-project-materials. Accessed 14 August 2017
  42. 42.↵
    1. Community Prevention Services Task Force
    . Diabetes Management: Team-Based Care for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. 2016, The Community Guide. Available from https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/diabetes-management-team-based-care-patients-type-2-diabetes. Accessed 5 December 2017
  43. 43.↵
    1. Community Prevention Services Task Force
    . Diabetes Prevention and Control: Intensive Lifestyle Interventions for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. 2016, The Community Guide. Available from https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/diabetes-intensive-lifestyle-interventions-patients-type-2-diabetes. Accessed 5 December 2017
  44. 44.↵
    1. Islam N,
    2. Shapiro E,
    3. Wyatt L, et al
    . Evaluating community health workers’ attributes, roles, and pathways of action in immigrant communities. Prev Med 2017;103:1–7
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Walker RJ,
    2. Smalls BL,
    3. Egede LE
    . Social determinants of health in adults with type 2 diabetes: contribution of mutable and immutable factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2015;110:193–201
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Becerra MB,
    2. Allen NL,
    3. Becerra BJ
    . Food insecurity and low self-efficacy are associated with increased healthcare utilization among adults with type II diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complications 2016;30:1488–1493
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Brown HS 3rd.,
    2. Wilson KJ,
    3. Pagan JA, et al
    . Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community health worker intervention for low-income Hispanic adults with diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E140
  48. 48.↵
    1. Jack HE,
    2. Arabadjis SD,
    3. Sun L,
    4. Sullivan EE,
    5. Phillips RS
    . Impact of community health workers on use of healthcare services in the United States: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2017;32:325–344
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Diabetes: 36 (2)

In this Issue

April 2018, 36(2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Clinical Diabetes.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Culturally Tailored Community Health Worker Intervention Leads to Improvement in Patient-Centered Outcomes for Immigrant Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Diabetes
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Clinical Diabetes web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Culturally Tailored Community Health Worker Intervention Leads to Improvement in Patient-Centered Outcomes for Immigrant Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Nadia S. Islam, Laura C. Wyatt, M.D. Taher, Lindsey Riley, S. Darius Tandon, Michael Tanner, B. Runi Mukherji, Chau Trinh-Shevrin
Clinical Diabetes Apr 2018, 36 (2) 100-111; DOI: 10.2337/cd17-0068

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

A Culturally Tailored Community Health Worker Intervention Leads to Improvement in Patient-Centered Outcomes for Immigrant Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Nadia S. Islam, Laura C. Wyatt, M.D. Taher, Lindsey Riley, S. Darius Tandon, Michael Tanner, B. Runi Mukherji, Chau Trinh-Shevrin
Clinical Diabetes Apr 2018, 36 (2) 100-111; DOI: 10.2337/cd17-0068
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Funding
    • Duality of Interest
    • Author Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Improved Glycemic Control Following Transition to Tubeless Insulin Pump Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
  • Practical Strategies to Help Reduce Added Sugars Consumption to Support Glycemic and Weight Management Goals
  • “Counting Carbs to Be in Charge”: A Comparison of an Internet-Based Education Module With In-Class Education in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes
Show more Feature Articles

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Papers in Press
  • Abridged Standards of Care
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Diabetes Care
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Clinical Diabetes Print ISSN: 0891-8929, Online ISSN: 1945-4953.