Search

Abstract: The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity information recently divided the “Asian or Pacific Islander” category into “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” The OMB''s decision to disaggregate the “Asian or Pacific Islander” category was the first step toward providing these communities with information to better serve their needs. However, whether individuals who formerly made up the combined group categorize themselves as the new guidelines intend is a question analyzed in this report. A subset of adults participating in the Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study completed both the OMB-minimum and the expanded race and ethnicity measure used in the National Health Interview Survey. We compared responses on the expanded measure contained within the OMB “Asian” definition (Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Chinese, and/or Other Asian) to “Asian” responses on the OMB-minimum measure. Mixed heritage Asians less often marked “Asian.” Among mixed heritage Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos, 27%, 49%, and 52% did not mark “Asian” on the OMB measure, respectively. Eleven percent of single-heritage Filipinos did not mark “Asian.” Many individuals formerly making up the combined “Asian or Pacific Islander” group do not categorize themselves as the revised OMB guidelines intend. This is particularly evident among Filipinos and among Asians of mixed heritage. This research illuminates the reliability and utility of the broad “Asian” category and points to possible consequences of collapsing groups into a single category, i.e., missed information and/or erroneous generalization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Patient adherence, the level of asthma self-management skills, exposure to stress, and depression can have considerable influence on a wide range of asthma outcomes and thus are considered asthma outcome mediators. Objective: National Institutes of Health institutes and other federal agencies convened an expert group to recommend standardized measures for 7 domains of asthma clinical research outcomes measures. Although the review of mediators of these outcomes was not within the scope of any specific outcome topic, a brief summary is presented so that researchers might consider potential mediators. Methods: We prepared a summary of key mediators of asthma outcomes based on expertise and knowledge of the literature. Results: The rationale for including measures of adherence, self-management skills, and exposures to stress in asthma clinical research is presented, along with a brief review of instruments for collecting this information from clinical research participants. Conclusions: Appropriate measurement of adherence, self-management skills, and exposures to stress will enhance characterization of study participants and provide information about the potential impact these factors can have on mediating the effects of treatment interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: “Asthma-related quality of life” (QOL) refers to the perceived impact that asthma has on the patient’s QOL. Objective: National Institutes of Health institutes and other federal agencies convened an expert group to recommend standardized measures of the impact of asthma on QOL for use in future asthma clinical research. Methods: We reviewed published documentation regarding the development and psychometric evaluation; clinical research use since 2000; and extent to which the content of each existing QOL instrument provides a unique, reliable, and valid assessment of the intended construct. We classified instruments as core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to the study’s aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at an National Institutes of Health-organized workshop convened in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011. Results: Eleven instruments for adults and 6 for children were identified for review. None qualified as core instruments because they predominantly measured indicators of asthma control (symptoms and/or functional status); failed to provide a distinct, reliable score measuring all key dimensions of the intended construct; and/or lacked adequate psychometric data. Conclusions: In the absence of existing instruments that meet the stated criteria, currently available instruments are classified as either supplemental or emerging. Research is strongly recommended to develop and evaluate instruments that provide a distinct, reliable measure of the patient’s perception of the impact of asthma on all of the key dimensions of QOL, an important outcome that is not captured in other outcome measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]