Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between visual impairment and diabetes management self-efficacy., Methods: The present study utilized pooled cross-sectional data (2008-2018) from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component and Diabetes Care Survey. Binary and generalized ordinal logit regression models were used to compare diabetes management self-efficacy between patients with and without visual impairments., Results: Compared to their non-visually impaired counterparts, visually impaired persons had a lower odds of reporting high diabetes management self-efficacy. Similarly, visually impaired adults with diabetes have a significantly lower odds of being very confident in their ability to manage their conditions compared with adults who reported being not confident, somewhat confident, or confident. Several control factors, including self-behaviors and receipt of diabetes self-management education (DSME), were also associated with diabetes management self-efficacy., Conclusions: Visually impaired persons experience significant disparities in diabetes management self-efficacy. Given the relationship between self-efficacy and diabetes-related outcomes, it is crucial that DSME be tailored to effectively meet the individual needs of this population. Future research should explore the relationship between DSME and self-care behaviors, self-efficacy, and diabetes-related outcomes in visually impaired persons.

Background: In response to widespread opioid misuse, ten U.S. states have implemented regulations for facilities that primarily manage and treat chronic pain, called "pain clinics." Whether a clinic falls into a state's pain clinic definition determines the extent to which it is subject to oversight. It is unclear whether state pain clinic definitions model those found in the medical literature, and potential differences lead to discrepancies between scientific and professionally guided advice found in the medical literature and actual pain clinic practice. Identifying discrepancies could assist states to design laws that are more compatible with best practices suggested in the medical literature., Methods: We conducted an integrative systematic review to create a taxonomy of pain clinic definitions using academic medical literature. We then identified existing U.S. state pain clinic statutes and regulations and compared the developed taxonomy using a content analysis approach to understand the extent to which medical literature definitions are reflected in state policy., Results: In the medical literature, we identified eight categories of pain clinic definitions: 1) patient case mix; 2) single-modality treatment; 3) multidisciplinary treatment; 4) interdisciplinary treatment; 5) provider supervision; 6) provider composition; 7) marketing; and 8) outcome. We identified ten states with pain clinic laws. State laws primarily include the following definitional categories: patient case mix; single-modality treatment, and marketing. Some definitional categories commonly found in the medical literature, such as multidisciplinary treatment and interdisciplinary treatment, rarely appear in state law definitions., Conclusions: This is the first study to our knowledge to develop a taxonomy of pain clinic definitions and to identify differences between pain clinic definitions in U.S. state law and medical literature. Future work should explore the impact of different legal pain clinic definitions on provider decision-making and state-level health outcomes.

This article describes the development of a 6-week multiple caregiver group intervention for primary caregivers of adolescents diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder in low-income African American families. The intervention is aimed at increasing the primary caregivers' self-efficacy in managing interactions within the family and especially with child serving educational, mental health, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems. Development of the intervention involved seven iterative activities performed in a collaborative effort between an interdisciplinary academic team, community engagement specialists, members of the targeted population, and clinical partners from a large public mental health system. The intervention development process described in this article can provide guidance for teams that aim to develop new mental health interventions that target specific outcomes in populations with unique needs., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)