An Exploratory Study to Understand Factors Associated with Health-related Quality of Life Among Uninsured/Underinsured Patients as Identified by Clinic Providers and Staff

Since the release of Healthy People 2020, there has been extensive research understanding factors associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among specific populations. Despite this growing body of research, little has been conducted to understand the factors associated with HRQoL among uninsured/underinsured Americans. The purposes of the present study were to assess clinic staff to determine: (1) whether there is a need to examine HRQoL among uninsured/underinsured individuals, (2) whether there is a need for tailored HRQoL-promoting interventions among uninsured/underinsured individuals, and (3) the factors associated with HRQoL among uninsured/underinsured individuals. A survey was sent to an association of 41 clinics that provides free medical services to uninsured/underinsured individuals. The majority of participants indicated that uninsured/underinsured individuals experience unique factors associated with HRQoL and that there was a need to implement tailored HRQoL-improving interventions among uninsured/underinsured individuals. The results also present the personal/contextual factors associated with HRQoL of uninsured/underinsured individuals

Peer-To-Peer Health Promotion Interventions Among African American Men: A Scoping Review Protocol

Background Health promotion efforts among African American men have been met with significant challenges and have produced limited results. Interventions that do not align with the values, perspectives, and preferences of African American men often produce less effective results. Research among African American men has provided compelling evidence that these men prefer informal networks of health support. Recent successful health promotion efforts among these men have benefited from peer-to-peer models of implementation. To date, no known scoping or systematic review of peer-to-peer health promotion interventions among African American men has been conducted. The goal of this scoping review is to understand the extent of, design, implementation, and use of peer-to-peer interventions to promote health, improve quality of life, and prevent disease among African American men. Methods A review of the literature will be performed in PubMED, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science. The development of this protocol was guided by the work of Arksey and O’Malley and the PICOS statement. Reporting will be guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Eligible studies include those testing the effects of a peer-to-peer health promotion intervention targeting African American men. A comparison group will not be required. For the purposes of the current review, “peers” will be limited to other African American men. An initial screening of the titles and abstracts of potentially eligible studies will be completed by two independent reviewers. The full text of records that appear to meet the eligibility criteria will be accessed and further screened. Data will then be extracted and collected using a custom Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Extracted data will include authors’ name and publication year, target health issue(s), design of the intervention, components of the intervention, peer-led components of the intervention, peer role, length and type of training for peer leaders, intervention duration, frequency of the intervention, study design and number of participants, and main outcomes. Finally, results will be presented in table format and summarized in text format. Discussion Results will have implications for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health promotion interventions among African American men

Development of an Inventory for Health-Care Office Staff to Self-Assess Their Patient-Centered Cultural Sensitivity

Background: Patient-centered culturally sensitive health care (PC-CSHC) is a best practice approach for improving health-care delivery to culturally diverse populations and reducing health disparities. Despite patients’ report that cultural sensitivity by health-care office staff is an important aspect of PC-CSHC, the majority of available research on PC-CSHC focuses exclusively on health-care providers. This may be due in part to the paucity of instruments available to assess the cultural sensitivity of health-care office staff. The objective of the present study is to determine the psychometric properties of the Tucker-Culturally Sensitive Health Care Office Staff Inventory-Self-Assessment Form (T-CSHCOSI-SAF). This instrument is designed to enable health-care office staff to self-assess their level of agreement that they display behaviors and attitudes that culturally diverse patients have identified as office staff cultural sensitivity indicators. Methods: A sample of 510 health-care office staff were recruited at 67 health-care sites across the United States. These health-care office staff anonymously completed the T-CSHCOSI-SAF and a demographic data questionnaire. Results and Level of Evidence: Confirmatory factor analyses of the T-CSHCOSI-SAF revealed that this inventory has 2 factors with high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s αs= .916 and .912). Conclusion and Implications: The T-CSHCOSI-SAF is a useful inventory for health-care office staff to assess their own level of patient-centered cultural sensitivity. Such self-assessment data can be used in the development and implementation of trainings to promote patient-centered cultural sensitivity of health-care office staff and to help draw the attention of these staff to displaying patient-centered cultural sensitivity

Validation of an Inventory for Providers to Self-Assess Their Engagement in Patient-Centered Culturally Sensitive Health Care

Objective: Cultural sensitivity training of health-care providers could help eliminate health disparities. The Tucker-Culturally Sensitive Health-Care Provider Inventory (T-CSHCPI) is an inventory for providers to self-assess their engagement in patient-defined/-centered culturally sensitive health care. The T-CSHCPI is novel in that it assesses providers’ strengths and areas of growth in their efforts to provide culturally sensitive care as defined by culturally diverse patients. Methods: Using ratings on this inventory by a sample of culturally diverse providers (N = 291) from 67 health-care sites across the United States, a confirmatory analysis of the T-CSHCPI was conducted, and its validity and reliability were determined. Results: Factor analysis produced a final solution with 4 factors (interpersonal skills, conscientiousness, sensitivity, and disrespect/disempowerment) that were reliable. These 4 factors are associated with cultural competence, suggesting validity. Discussion: The T-CSHCPI measures independent dimensions of patient-centered care as identified by a national sample of health-care providers. The T-CSHCPI can be used to inform training that promotes patient-centered culturally sensitive health care by providers

Lessons Learned From a Community-Based Men’s Health Fair

Introduction: Strategies are needed to promote the uptake of preventive health services among Black, Hispanic, and rural men because these men underutilize health services. Previous research indicates that men prefer community-based health promotion programming, such as health fairs; however, specific guidance on how to tailor health fairs for Black, Hispanic, and rural men are lacking. The present seeks to study provides that guidance. Methods: A multisectoral team developed, implemented, and evaluated a men’s health fair in a county of South Carolina with a sizeable Black, Hispanic, and rural-dwelling population. Although the health fair was open to all men in the county, specific outreach campaigns were implemented to attract Black and Hispanic men. The health fair occurred on Father’s Day weekend in 2023 and consisted of health screenings, health information, and other resources (eg, condoms, research studies). Participants who attended the health fair were asked to complete a check-in survey (N = 103) that assessed demographic information and how they heard about the health fair, followed by a survey (N = 58) that assessed facilitators/barriers to participation in a men’s health fair. Results: Results were stratified by the gender of respondent. The results highlight the facilitators/barriers experienced by men to attending health fairs and also highlight important differences in facilitators/barriers for men to attend a health fair as perceived by men and women. Conclusions: These findings have implications for the design and implementation of future men’s health fairs to promote preventive health service use among Black, Hispanic, and rural men