Search

Latinos experience disproportionate rates of obesity and related conditions like type 2 diabetes, which are projected to increase (Mohebi et al., 2022). Standard interventions for these issues often fall short due to individual-focused approaches and the lack of culturally sensitive definitions of health that include emotional, physical, political, and social domains (Gutierrez Chavez et al., 2022; Ritchie et al., 2020). Multilevel and multidimensional research efforts, integrating social justice-informed orientations, psychotherapy science, and behavioral medicine, are crucial for addressing these health inequities (Asnaani, 2023; Collins et al., 2018; Rodriguez Espinosa & Verney, 2021). Additionally, critically analyzing researcher and participant roles is essential to avoid perpetuating systemic racism (Cook et al., 2023). This article highlights the need for a paradigm shift in psychotherapy research by (a) describing Latino families' eating patterns and coping strategies for emotional distress through focus groups in the community and (b) illustrating the process behind the community-partnered development of a culturally responsive mindfulness-based health intervention. Importantly, this research approach emphasizes liberation psychology theory in the exploration of structural influences affecting health (Martín-Baró, 1996). While mindfulness techniques are feasible in this population (Cotter & Jones, 2020), Latino communities may not be amenable to the current presentation of mainstream psychological science interventions. Our research paradigm informed the conceptualization of mindfulness techniques through both clinical science and critical lenses. Thus, this study argues for reconceptualizing the definition of a successful psychotherapy study to include community engagement and liberatory principles, making the potential for big needle jumps in addressing health inequities incalculable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: The National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) is an evidence-based lifestyle intervention successfully disseminated across the United States. Some adaptations have been made to address real-world needs, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to qualitatively describe adaptations Lifestyle Coaches made in response to the pandemic., Methods: Between May and June 2021, Lifestyle Coaches ( n  = 300) from organizations across the United States answered open-ended survey questions about adjustments implemented during the pandemic. Survey responses were descriptively coded and codes were grouped into categories., Results: Nearly all coaches transitioned the format of their class from in-person to remote delivery (93.0 %; n  = 279). Other commonly-reported strategies included adjusting contact with participants (48.0 %; n  = 144), increasing support for participants (36.7 %; n  = 110), and tailoring materials (28.3 %; n  = 85)., Conclusions: Maintaining these adaptations may address barriers to engagement in the National DPP and improve access to the program. Increased support for emotional symptoms and ensuring a patient-centered approach to care are particularly promising strategies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes is prevalent among US adults. Lifestyle interventions that modify health behaviours prevent or delay progression to diabetes among individuals at high risk. Despite the well-documented influence of individuals' social context on their health, evidence-based type 2 diabetes prevention interventions do not systematically incorporate participants' romantic partners. Involving partners of individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes in primary prevention may improve engagement and outcomes of programmes. The randomised pilot trial protocol described in this manuscript will evaluate a couple-based lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes. The objective of the trial is to describe the feasibility of the couple-based intervention and the study protocol to guide planning of a definitive randomised clinical trial (RCT)., Methods and Analysis: We used community-based participatory research principles to adapt an individual diabetes prevention curriculum for delivery to couples. This parallel two-arm pilot study will include 12 romantic couples in which at least one partner (ie, 'target individual') is at risk for type 2 diabetes. Couples will be randomised to either the 2021 version of the CDC's PreventT2 curriculum designed for delivery to individuals (six couples), or PreventT2 Together, the adapted couple-based curriculum (six couples). Participants and interventionists will be unblinded, but research nurses collecting data will be blinded to treatment allocation. Feasibility of the couple-based intervention and the study protocol will be assessed using both quantitative and qualitative measures., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the University of Utah IRB (#143079). Findings will be shared with researchers through publications and presentations. We will collaborate with community partners to determine the optimal strategy for communicating findings to community members. Results will inform a subsequent definitive RCT., Trial Registration Number: NCT05695170., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: DG’s institution has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly and Optum and DG was also a past president of Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists: Minnesota state chapter; KH is the programme coordinator for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, has received travel and conference funds through the Urban Indian Center of Salt Lake, and is the planning committee co-chair for the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists Utah Annual Diabetes Update Conference; KB is a Representative-at-Large on the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies Board of Directors and was a Member-at-Large on the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology Board of Directors; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated disparities in mental health treatment for people of color in the USA. Meeting the needs of those most burdened by this disparity will require swift and tactical action in partnership with these communities. The purpose of this paper is to describe how a community-based participatory research approach was employed to assess the priorities and needs of four communities of color (African immigrant, Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and Pacific Islander) in a major U.S. city. A brief quantitative survey devised jointly by community leaders and the research team was deployed to community members (N = 59) in the fall of 2020. The most endorsed mental health issues across the communities were excessive worry (51%) and stress regarding COVID-19, racism, and immigration policies (49%). The most endorsed physical health concerns included sleep difficulties (44%), headaches, and backaches (each 39%). Physical symptoms predicted the endorsement of a mental health issue above and beyond COVID-19-related hardships, multiplying the odds of reporting an issue by 1.73 per physical health concern endorsed. Based on these findings, the community-research team conceptualized and proposed an evidence-based, effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-2 intervention approach for chronic worry and daily stress. This paper highlights detail on how the community-research team arrived at the proposed multilevel intervention that addresses community-stated barriers to mental health treatment (e.g., preferring trusted health workers to deliver emotional health treatments) and considers the burden of the additional stressful context of COVID-19., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2022. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Integrating best practices for health disparities to adapt evidence-based treatments is imperative to adequately meet the needs of diverse cultures, particularly ones that therapists can apply flexibility across multiple diverse communities., Method: Using a mixed-methods, community-engaged approach, we examined how a range of community participants (N = 169) defined mental health, perceived barriers to treatment, and used culturally based coping methods to manage their mental health. Phase 1 (n = 49) included qualitative focus group data from five distinct racial/ethnic communities (African immigrants/refugees, Black/African Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians). Phase 2 included quantitative surveys from members of four of these communities (n = 59) and the frontline providers serving them (n = 61)., Results: The communities and providers highlighted chronic worry and distress related to daily activities as primary treatment concerns. Further, this mixed-methods data informed our proposed best practice treatment adaptation framework using chronic worry as an example., Conclusion: The main aims of this study were to exemplify best practices for addressing mental health inequities in communities of color in terms of (a) conducting health disparities research and (b) applying a treatment adaptation framework for culturally responsive clinical care. Specific features of how this framework was conceived and applied provide a unique and critical view into integrating best practices to address health disparities in diverse communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Purpose: To describe Lifestyle Coach perceptions of dyads (i.e., family members and/or friends) in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP)., Design: Qualitative evaluation of cross-sectional survey responses., Setting: Online., Participants: Lifestyle Coaches (n=253) with experience teaching at least one in-person year-long NDPP cohort at a CDC-recognized organization., Measures: Survey included items on background and experience with dyadic approach, as well as open-ended items on the benefits and challenges observed when working with dyads in the NDPP., Analysis: Lifestyle Coach background and experience were analyzed descriptively in SPSS. Open-ended responses were content coded in ATLAS.ti using qualitative description, and then grouped into categories., Results: Most Lifestyle Coaches (n=210; 83.0%) reported experience delivering the NDPP to dyads. Benefits of a dyadic approach included having a partner in lifestyle change, superior outcomes and increased engagement, and positive "ripple effects." Challenges included difficult relationship dynamics, differences between dyad members, negative "ripple effects," and logistics., Conclusion: Lifestyle Coaches described a number of benefits, as well as some challenges, with a dyadic approach to the NDPP. Given the concordance between close others in lifestyle and other risk factors for type 2 diabetes, utilizing a dyadic approach in the NDPP has the potential to increase engagement, improve outcomes, and extend the reach of the program.

Individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have lesser participation and success in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP). Barriers to NDPP participation and lifestyle change were examined from the perspective of Lifestyle Coaches serving lower versus higher income participants. Lifestyle Coaches (n = 211) who serve lower income (n = 82) or higher income (n = 129) participants reported on observed barriers to NDPP participation and lifestyle change and ranked the three most significant barriers to (a) NDPP participation and (b) lifestyle change. Group differences in number/type of barriers were examined using t-tests and chi-square analyses, and ranking differences were examined using multilevel cumulative logit models. Lifestyle Coaches of lower income (versus higher income) participants reported two additional barriers on average. Ranked barriers to participation were similar between groups, and notably included physical/emotional barriers. However, for lifestyle change, those serving lower income groups were more likely to rank lack of access to healthy grocery stores, but less likely to rank low motivation and lack of family support. Lifestyle Coaches of lower income participants were less likely to rank long wait period prior to enrollment as the most significant barrier to participation, and to rank lack of time off from work as the most significant barrier to lifestyle change. Despite more barriers observed among lower versus higher income participants, overlap in the most significant barriers highlights the potential utility of widely addressing common barriers among NDPP participants. In particular, physical and emotional barriers have been overlooked, yet deserve greater attention in future research and practice., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2022. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)