A patient-centered comparative effectiveness research study of culturally appropriate options for diabetes self-management

The specter of uncontrolled diabetes

Diabetes is among the Institute of Medicine’s top 25 national priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) [2]. More than thirty-seven million people or 11.3% of the U.S. population have Type 2 diabetes [3]. While statistics this large can seem remote and impersonal, each patient member of our project team has life-altering personal experience with diabetes. Not only do they have diabetes or pre-diabetes themselves, they also have family members or multiple family members with diabetes. They report that diabetes is so common in the Latinx community that people just assume that they will get it, and if they are diagnosed with diabetes, that diabetes is a death sentence about which there is nothing they can do. So, most of the time, they do nothing. Our patient team members fear diabetes not only for themselves and their adult family members, but also for the future that awaits their children growing up with the specter of diabetes but without the knowledge, capacity, or skills to take control of their own health destiny. Our project sought to disrupt this fatalistic dynamic of despair. As such, our partners, who are Latinx patients from low-income households, their family members, and healthcare providers who serve this population of patients recognize effective diabetes self-management as a matter of life and death.

Diabetes health disparities

Although diabetes is a national health crisis, risk is not the same for everybody Individuals from minority and ethnic populations and those with low-income status are at significantly higher risk [4]. Latinx adults are 70% more likely than non-Latinx white adults to be diagnosed with diabetes by a physician [5] and the risk of developing diabetes over the lifespan for Latinxs is 50% versus 40% for the overall U.S. population. According to an analysis of data from the U.S. National Longitudinal Mortality Study, Latinxs are also 28% more likely to die from diabetes, with Mexican Americans, representing 33.5 million people or 61.4% of U.S. Latinxs,)] 50% more at risk [6]. Rates for diabetes diagnoses (11.9%) and the diabetes death rate (45.9 per 100,000) for Latinxs are both more than twice those for non-Hispanic whites (5.3% and 22.5) [7,8]. Not surprisingly, a national poll by Harvard University, National Public Radio (NPR), and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that diabetes is the top health concern for Latinx families [9].

Similarly, poverty has an impact on diabetes risk. Research shows that individuals from low-income communities experience higher rates of diabetes [10–13]. Analysis of National Health Interview Survey data found that the “greatest disparities [for diabetes risk] were experienced by the groups who had the lowest level of education, were living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), or both [4].” This is a troubling concern for Latinxs given the high level of Latinx poverty (15.7%) [11]. In New Mexico, where Latinxs, who make up 47% of the population, have a poverty rate of 20.8% [14], ethnicity and poverty both play a significant role in diabetes health and health disparities. New Mexico is the second-poorest state in the nation, with poverty among Latinxs (24% for 18-64 year-olds and 37% for 17-and-under) significantly higher than among non-Hispanic whites (12% and 13%) [15]. Individuals in New Mexico from low-income households are nearly three times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes (14%) than individuals from households making more than $50,000 (5.2%) [3], meaning that given the Latinx poverty rate, diabetes risk for individuals from low-income Latinx households is disproportionately high.

Gaps in evidence

Biomedical approaches to diabetes care are well-established, but pharmacologic therapies are often extremely costly, may have problematic health side effects, do not always result in the intended improvement in patients’ diabetes health, and involve hard-to-follow regimens given social and environmental barriers faced by low-income patients. Instead, health guidelines emphasize the important role of patient self-care over narrow reliance on medical treatments for reducing the health impact of diabetes and improving diabetes health outcomes. The Guide to Community Preventive Services instructs individuals to engage in lifestyle changes based on combined diet and physical activity improvements as the best way to prevent and manage Type 2 diabetes [16]. The Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium Guidelines for Management of Diabetes Mellitus recommend that individuals be given “comprehensive diabetes self-management education.” [17]. Recommended Lifestyle and Self-management Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association discuss the importance of individualized education, monitoring, and counseling [18]. Individuals can self-manage their diabetes or prevent pre-diabetes from becoming full diabetes through daily physical activity, a healthy diet, minimizing stress, and for those with full diabetes, regular glucose self-monitoring [19]. But these are not things that can happen in the clinic or via prescription; they are things that patients must do to care for themselves every day.

Despite clear and consistent guidelines, diabetes health outcomes are not improving [19]. The guidelines do not provide a roadmap for getting individuals to embrace necessary self-care practices. However, systematic reviews have repeatedly demonstrated that culturally competent health promotion approaches that account for a patient’s culture and the social context of poverty can be vital to improving health outcomes [20–28]. In particular, culturally competent self-management interventions have been shown to significantly improve glycemic control and behaviors related to diet and physical activity, and increase diabetes-related knowledge. As a result, “cultural competence” has become prominent in diabetes health promotion. Various models have been developed to create “culturally competent” diabetes self-management programming [20–28]. Yet, there is no agreement on what “cultural competence” actually means or entails. Because of a continued emphasis on individual behavior in approaches to diabetes health promotion, the design of self-management programming does not always create cultural competence in a way that makes sense in the context of patients’ lives or improves their health.

Promising practices

Different models are being used to make diabetes self-management programs culturally competent. However, this variation creates uncertainty for a patient with diabetes who does not understand that programs can differ significantly, how they differ, or which programs offer them the best option. For Latinx patients from low-income households, it is not clear which type of culturally competent self-management programming most effectively integrates their culture and accommodates their socio-economic circumstances in a way to best improve their diabetes health. This study addressed this gap by using issues identified as important by patients to design measures for directly comparing different evidence-based models for culturally competent diabetes self-management health promotion being implemented by programs that are currently available to Latinx patients from low-income households in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Our patient-engaged preliminary research suggested that the results of this study could offer significant benefit to patients trying to find support for developing the knowledge and capacity to self-manage their diabetes [29,30]. Patient stakeholders recognized the imperative of everyday diabetes self-care strategies, but lacked the knowledge and capacity to successfully adopt the changes outlined in the guidelines, thus improving their Hemoglobin A1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) and successfully controlling their diabetes. Improving models and approaches for diabetes self-care health promotion is critical to the health of our Advisors, their adult family members, and their children.

Community Engaged Design

We used a community-engaged research approach with the engagement of, and participation by, diverse patient stakeholders, including Latinx diabetes patients and their social supports, Latinx community health workers (CHWs), Latinx diabetes educators [31–34], and partner community agencies serving Latinx clients. A patient advisory board identified the research question and contributed to the design and implementation of the study. Patient stakeholders participated in all aspects of the research. The community co-principal investigator (Co-PI), the project coordinator, the primary research site director, the research manager, and three data collectors were from the population of study [31,34]. We convened a 10-member

Patient Advisory Board (PAB) of patients, individuals who provide care or social support to a person(s) with diabetes (hereafter, “social supports”), and researchers. Patients and patient stakeholders participated in the study across the continuum of engagement, including shared leadership, collaboration, consultation, and input at every stage.

Rationale

The idea for this study came from our patient partners. In 2009, a CHW at One Hope Centro de Vida Health Center (referenced hereafter as One Hope) who knew PI Page-Reeves asked her for help because the CHW saw a rising problem of diabetes in the Latinx community that was not being addressed, and she felt that patients did not really understand their diabetes or know what to do when they were diagnosed. We obtained pilot funding through [BLINDED] to assess the problem’s dimensions and obtain community input regarding diabetes health and ideas for prevention. We mapped local Geographic Information System (GIS) data and conducted a survey and blood analysis for A1c with 100 people, conducted interviews with key community stakeholders, and held a series of focus groups with patients and social supports. Our PAB participated in designing focus group/interview questions and interpreting findings. Results from the pilot [29,30] provided a roadmap for a CCM diabetes self-management initiative at One Hope. This laid the foundation for us to receive funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to engage patients, social supports, stakeholders from different diabetes programs, and university researchers in designing this study.

We provided a respectful and culturally appropriate environment for PAB meetings [33]. Our PAB included individuals who were uncomfortable speaking in English or did not understand English. PAB meetings were conducted in Spanish as the default language. If we brought in content experts or researchers who did not speak Spanish, we provided them with an English translation, but we still held the meetings in Spanish to acknowledge patients as at the core of the process. During the planning process, we provided trainings to help our PAB members develop their capacity to participate in and contribute to the research. We held PAB meetings at One Hope clinic, an accessible location for PAB members that does not have the challenges of parking that exist at the university.

Local context for each model

The two models being compared were the Diabetes Self-Management Support Empowerment Model (DSMS) and [35] the Chronic Care Model (CCM) [28,36]. Each program serves a large population of Latinx patients from low-income households in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and employs a distinct evidence-based approach to create program cultural competence. Patient participants were recruited from both programs. One program, the Center for Diabetes Education at the University of New Mexico Hospital (CDE-UNMH), is based at a university hospital and uses the DSMS [35]. The other, One Hope, is based at a community clinic operated by a faith-based nonprofit and uses the CCM approach [28,36].

The Diabetes Self-Management Support Empowerment Model (DSMS)

The DSMS is a patient-centered, theoretically based educational framework that follows National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education [35], is certified by the American Diabetes Association [37], and is accredited by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) [37]. The DSMS combines a series of clinically informed group didactic sessions that use a patient self-determination approach to empower patients to take control of their own diabetes health with follow-up support to sustain self-management gains achieved during the sessions. The AADE requires that educators acquire proficiency in culturally competent supportive care across the lifespan as one of five domains for certification so that educators can be informed about and aware of specific challenges that might accrue in the patient’s diabetes self-management experience. This program represents the gold standard for diabetes self-management education, focusing on changing eating and physical activity behaviors, self-monitoring, risk reduction, and stress management. The CDE-UNMH program uses the DSMS group education approach. Patients attend a six-week group instructional session with nine hours of class plus a one-on-one follow-up with a certified diabetes educator to provide individualized support by creating a customized education plan. The group sessions have discussions supported by didactic conversation “maps” where the facilitator guides but does not control the conversation based on session thematic goals. Patients then complete self-assessment forms. This format is the foundation of the DSMS Model for creating patient empowerment and program cultural competence.

The Chronic Care Model (CCM)

The CCM is “a systematic approach to restructuring medical care to create partnerships between health systems and communities” [28,36] by addressing not only the medical but also the cultural and linguistic needs of patients through the inclusion of cultural competence in the delivery system design [28].The CCM involves six synergistic domains: 1.) Improved access to care, 2.) Patient self-management support, 3.) Patient decision support, 4.) Care coordination, 5.) Integrated health information systems, and 6.) Access to community resources. The use of the CCM framework has yielded significant results in treating diabetes and is being used widely in chronic disease management [36]. To create a holistic care regime, the CCM focuses on addressing social determinants of health by meeting patients’ medical, cultural, and linguistic needs through integrating cultural norms and social relationships from the patient population into program design [24].

The One Hope Program is based on the CCM and is designed to address the specific needs of Latinx patients from low-income households [25,30] by creating comprehensive, integrated, wrap-around services focused on culturally competent care [24]. One Hope emphasizes Spanish as the language for service provision [29,30] and access to care regardless of ability to pay. The One Hope facility provides a physical environment that reflects patients’ lifestyle and economic capacity to make them feel comfortable and that they “belong” (in contrast to more clinical, corporate, or academic medical settings). One Hope is a community-run clinic with a director and staff who are members of the community and who are culturally and economically similar to the patients they serve, reducing the hierarchical power relationship that generally exists between patients and providers. This approach is evident in the way that doctors at One Hope share decision-making by engaging the patient and their family members in creating a plan for diabetes self-management.

In addition, patients, caregivers, and family members participate in a variety of program activities including cooking and nutrition workshops, zumba classes, and citas compartidas sessions (“shared appointments”) [38,39]. These shared appointment sessions allow patients, social supports, and family members to share their stories and experiences in a peer support setting with facilitation by medically trained providers. But providers also “co-learn” from the patients [25,40,41]. Through shared decision-making and shared appointments, providers learn about the realities of patients’ lives and their daily struggles at a level beyond the interaction normally occurring in a clinic. This helps the provider to be culturally competent by understanding diabetes from the perspective of the patient. Sharing experiences with peers and providers and including family members in activities offers a different level of social support for the patient by creating an enhanced feeling of intimacy and inclusion within the program.

Innovative salidas (exit interviews), conducted routinely with all patients by a bilingual health navigator, ensures that the patient understands and feels capable of implementing a doctor’s instructions, and integrates care delivery by allowing the health navigator to communicate details of patient status back to the provider [29].

Development of the research question

“I have diabetes, but I am not just a patient. I am a person. I have cultural values and concrete realities that shape my everyday life. Both need to be considered for me to be able to feel that my care is making me well and to make it more likely that I can control my A1c. With this in mind, which of two self-management programs is the most culturally and contextually appropriate option for me to take the best care of myself in relation to my diabetes?”^{[Translation from Spanish]}

We co-developed this research question with our PAB. Specifically, they were concerned about the failure of diabetes self-management programming to account for important dimensions of Latinx culture or the social context created by poverty. At our PAB meetings, patients and social supports discussed these issues with us extensively and with emotion. What they had to say supported what we heard in previous conversations with patients and community members, and in our preliminary research [29,30]. Patients, social supports and community members reported: a.) A lack of cultural competence on the part of providers, b.) A lack of programming in Spanish, c.) Failure of program design to understand or accommodate the dynamics of Latinx culture related to core values prioritizing the importance of social relationships and the need to avoid personal conflict [41,42]. d.) Poor program accommodation of the fact that patients lack resources, and [40] e.) A lack of attention to the extent to which poverty results in low diabetes health literacy, low capacity to deal with chronic disease, and high stress [40]. All of these factors influence patients’ ability to comply with recommendations regarding drugs, diet, and physical activity to self-manage their diabetes. This question guided the research.

Theoretical framework

Trickett proposes that cultural competence entails integrating components of an intervention “into the local expression of culture as reflected in the multiple levels of the ecological context” [43,44]. Rather than merely “tailoring” an existing intervention to target a specific context or population (for example, by offering recipes for healthy meals using Latinx cuisine or providing educational materials in Spanish), he emphasizes the need for interventions to be “situated” to fit synergistically within broader community dynamics (culture and socio-economic context). Following Trickett, and reflecting input from our patient partners, we hypothesized that getting people to adopt lifestyle and behavior changes outlined in guidelines for diabetes self-management requires positively leveraging the cultural values and accommodating the socio-economic circumstances of a patient population in a way that creates synergy with specific social dynamics that define patients’ everyday lives [29,30] (Fig 1).

Therefore, our overarching study hypothesis was that diabetes self-management programs are most successful if their design is culturally and contextually “situated.”

Fig 1. Diagram of relationships between study elements. A1c levels is used as a biomarker of serum glucose, and indiator of diabetes. A1c, glycated hemoglobin A1c; BMI, body mass index.

Specific aims

This study had three specific aims:

Aim #1. Measure and compare the improvement in patient capacity for diabetes self-management as indicated by improvement in diabetes knowledge and patient activation.

Aim #2. Measure and compare patient success at diabetes self-management as indicated by improvement in A1c, depression index score, and body mass index (BMI).

Aim #3. Characterize the ways that two distinct culturally competent diabetes self-management programs interface with patient culture and socioeconomic context.

Improved patient capacity for diabetes self-management

For our primary outcome, we identified two validated and reliable instruments available in both English and Spanish. Capacity for diabetes self-management was measured using the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM).

1. Diabetes knowledge was measured using the DKQ summed score.

   Hypothesis: The Chronic Care Model (CCM) model would result in a larger increase in DKQ summed scores from baseline to 6 months as compared to the Diabetes Self-Management Support Empowerment Model DSMS. Previously published studies evaluating culturally competent diabetes management programs report meaningful changes in DKQ summed scores with Cohen’s f effect sizes of 0.03 to 0.16 in studies ranging in sample sizes per arm from 10 to 189 [45–48].

2. Patient activation was measured using the PAM-10 raw score.

   Hypothesis: The CCM model would result in a larger increase in PAM-10 raw scores from baseline to 6 months as compared to the DSMS. Previously published studies evaluating culturally competent diabetes management programs report changes in PAM-10 raw scores with meaningful Cohen’s f effect sizes of 0.01 to 0.16 in studies ranging in sample size per arm from 26 to 133 (per Shah, Co-I Burge, and colleagues) [49–53].

Improvement in A1c, BMI, and PHQ-9

For our secondary outcome of successful diabetes self-management, we used A1c, BMI, and a depression scale score from the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) [54–56]. We chose A1c because our patients worry a great deal about their A1c levels and because it is the widely accepted standard for assessing glycemic control. To enhance the scientific quality of our research design, we added BMI as a proxy for improved diet and physical activity. Our advisors also identified depression as an important issue, so we included a depression scale score.

1. Hypothesis: The CCM model would result in a larger decrease in percent A1c from baseline to 6 months as compared to the DSMS. Previously published studies and institutional experience evaluating culturally competent diabetes management programs report changes in percent A1c with Cohen’s f effect sizes of 0.01 to 0.06 in studies ranging in sample size per arm from 26 to 133 [50–53].

2. Hypothesis: The CCM model would result in a larger decrease in BMI from baseline to 6 months than DSMS with a clinically meaningful difference of 1.5 kg/m2 between the groups (Cohen’s f ES = 0.06) [57,58].

3. Hypothesis: Compared to DSMS, CCM would result in a larger decrease (by 3 points) in PHQ-9 scores from baseline to 6 months (Cohen’s f ES = 0.06) [53,59,60].

Dyadic enrollment design

We enrolled participants as dyads, where half were patients diagnosed with diabetes or pre-diabetes (“patient participants”) and half were individuals identified by the patient participant as someone in their lives who provides them with significant social support (“social support participants”). This research design was developed to respond to patient advisory board input that the importance of social relationships in Latinx culture tends to be ignored in both health research and health care. Including patient-social support dyads was a mechanism for incorporating the social dimension of patient’s lives in our research. Patient participants provided data related to their own health or experience. Social support participants primarily provided data on their perspective on their patient partner’s health.

Patient participants

Patient participants were individuals entering one of the two programs during the period of the study either because they were newly diagnosed with diabetes or pre/diabetes, or because they were having trouble managing their blood sugar levels. They were entering a program in order to obtain skills and information to improve their knowledge about diabetes and increase their capacity for self-management. Patient participants were adults (18 years old), self-≥ identified as Latinx(a), self-reported household income below 250% of the FPL, and were able to identify a social support who was willing to participate in the study. We used 250% of FPL because research has shown that individuals at 250% of the FPL are still “poor” in that they cannot afford all of the basic necessities for a healthy life [62]. Therefore, all patient participants in the study were “low-income.”

Social support participants

The only requirements for social support participants were that they had to be adults (18 ≥ years old) and had to be willing to participate in the research. The social support did not have to be an actual “caregiver” to the patient, nor were they screened for ethnicity or income in order to participate.

Data collectors

Three patient stakeholder data collectors [1,34,63] were trained in survey administration, the collection of biological samples (phlebotomy), and in research methods, including human subjects ethics, research protocols, consenting procedures, how to use a tablet to gather survey responses, and to use Realtime Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), the secure data capture system used and supported by the [BLINDED]. All three data collectors were native Spanish speakers. One was completely bilingual in Spanish and English, one was semi-fluent in English, and one was a monolingual Spanish speaker. Participants chose the language (English or Spanish) used for consent and data collection appointments, and data collectors were assigned accordingly.

Timeframe

Data were gathered at baseline between February 2016 and March 2020 [1]. Each participant was enrolled in the study for 12 months. Some 12-month data collection appointments were prematurely halted two weeks early in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data collection frequency

We gathered data from all participants at four time points (baseline, three months, six months, and 12 months). Baseline collection occurred before the patient participant began any program activities. All participants received a $50 merchandise card for attending each data collection appointment.

Data sources

We used four data sources: surveys, physical measures (A1c and BMI), patient participant and social support participant interviews/focus groups, and a program assessment of each site.

Demographics

The majority of participants were female (72.6%) (Table 1a). Response options for the demographic question about gender were “male/female/other.” One participant identified their gender as “other.” In an interview conducted with this participant, she self-identified as a trans woman (assigned male at birth) who has not opted to initiate medication or surgical intervention for gender dysphoria. In research that is survey-based and self-report, there is movement to count trans individuals as the gender with which they self-identify, but in research dealing with biology/physiology, there is precedent for dropping them from the analysis. This project gathered both survey and biological data. We made a conscious decision not to exclude this one individual from the analysis, as that would align with the binary gender tradition in research that reflects and contributes to social and political dynamics that make transgender individuals invisible. Because we would like to honor this participant’s gender, as she states, we present gender as a non-binary variable both out of respect and to represent her in the research as she represents herself. However, for statistical purposes, rather than dropping her from the analysis, she was coded as “male.” We made this decision because she was diagnosed with diabetes long before publicly self-identifying as a trans woman and she has not made any physiological changes.

Therefore, we hypothesized that her diabetes-related biology would be more in alignment with male physiology than female. The majority of participants were married (57.5%) and reported speaking Spanish as the only language at home (58.4%) (Table 1a). The median age of the patient participants was 51.9 (IQR bounds: 45.3 to 60.3) years. The household size was fairly evenly distributed among living alone or having one to four other household members (range: 15%-23%). Nearly one-half (49.6%) did not graduate from high school. The majority of participants self-rated their health as either “good” (44.4%) or “fair” (32.9%) (Table 1b).

Compared to patients in the DSMS, patients in the CCM were significantly younger (49.5 vs 55.2), slightly more likely to be male (34% vs 21%), more likely to be partnered or married (67.9% vs 48.3%), and less likely to have graduated from high school (73.5% vs 28.3%) (Table 1a). CCM patients were also significantly more likely to only speak Spanish at home (97.2% vs 24.2%), less likely to prefer to speak English if they speak both Spanish and English at home (0% vs 82.7%), and less likely to speak English well if they do not speak English at home (15.4% vs 72.3%). CCM patients had much lower income-to-FPL ratios (0.54 vs 0.94) and were more likely to live no higher than FPL (85.8% vs 55.0%) (Table 1b).

Physiological characteristics

Patient participants were split between those who entered with pre-diabetes (42.2%) and diabetes (57.8%), with the median time since diagnosis of their current diabetes category 1.6 years (Table 2a). Some patient participants had recently tested in the pre-diabetes range which was why their provider had referred them to a program but between diagnosis and when they began the program, some made lifestyle changes such that when we drew blood samples for A1c at baseline, they were below the range for prediabetes. We did not exclude them from the study because the A1c analysis conducted as part of our baseline because we were not using an A1c test to screen for enrollment.

Median baseline A1c was 6.6, with 33.3% of those with diabetes having A1c over 10. Median BMI was 32.7 (Table 2a). The vast majority reported a family member with diabetes (81.6%), were taking some type of medication (75.1%), and that their social support participant partner was helpful to them in managing their diabetes (90.7%).

Patient participants at both sites had comparable median A1c values (CCM 6.5% vs DSMS 6.7%) with a similar distribution over A1c diabetes ranges of pre-diabetes and diabetes, and similar median BMI (31.2 vs 33.6) (Table 2a). The majority in both programs were above normal BMI compared to norms for American adults--between 18.5 and 24.9. For CCM, 61% and for DSMS, 90% were obese. There were differences between PPs in the CCM and those in the DSMS on variables such as entering the program with diabetes, time since diagnosis, taking medications for diabetes, adhering to the medication prescription, and the importance of the social support in managing the disease.

Capacity for diabetes self-management

All patient participants generally scored low on diabetes knowledge (DKQ), with an average score of 14/23, and compared to DSMS, patient participants in CCM scored lower by two points (13 vs 15) (Table 2b). However, these values were consistent with baseline assessments of similar populations.

The average PAM-10 score was 77.3, with 96% scoring at Level 3 (taking action) or 4 (maintaining behaviors/pushing further) (Table 2b). PPs in CCM compared to patient participants in DSMS scored higher by four points with more patient participants at Level 4 (72.6% vs 55.0%) and with fewer at Level 1 (disengaged/overwhelmed) and Level 2 (becoming aware, but struggling) (1.8% vs 5.8%).

Depression

More than half (52.2%) of the patient participants ranked as having symptoms of depression, with 22.2% in the “Moderate,” “Moderately Severe,” or “Severe” categories (Table 3). More than half in either program scored as having mild to severe depression although a higher percentage of subjects in DSMS tested for moderately severe to severe depression (11.7%) compared to CCM (3.8%).

Selected environmental and comorbid conditions

The three most commonly reported comorbid conditions reported were hypertension (28.3%), high cholesterol (16.4%), and a thyroid condition (13.7%) (Table 4). Rates for hypertension between patient participants in the two programs were similar; however, CCM patient participants were less likely to have any comorbid condition (41.5% vs. 70.0%) and had fewer comorbid conditions reported (Q1-Q3: 0-1 vs. 0-3).

Social supports

The most common social support participant relationship categories were family member other than spouse (42.5%) and spouse (27.9%) (Table 5a). Most patient participants reported daily interaction (65.9%) with the social support participants, primarily in-person (85.8%), although only slightly more than half live in the same household with their social support participant (Table 5b).

The mean age for social support participants was 46.3 years and the majority were female (64.6%) (Table 6). Educational attainment for social support participants was diverse, with nearly one-third having completed 8^th grade or lower, and nearly one-third having completed high school or the equivalent (28.8%). Eighteen social supports (8.0%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher. CCM social support participants were slightly more likely to be female (68.9% vs 60.8%). Educational attainment at the sites was somewhat different--nearly half of CCM social support participants (45.3%) had only completed 8^th grade or lower verses 16.7% for DSMS, and CCM social support participants were less likely to have completed high school or the equivalent (22.6% vs 34.2%), to have some college or an associate’s degree (15.1% vs 23.3%), or to have a bachelor’s degree or higher (1.9% vs 13.3%).

Coding of interviews and focus groups

During Year 1, we conducted 11 provider interviews—five at CCM, six at CDE. During Years 1 and 2, we conducted eight focus groups (2/site/year) with a mix of 36 patient participants and social support participants, and 44 interviews with 23 unique patient participants (12 CCM, 11 CDE) and 21 unique social support participants (12 CCM, 9 CDE). In Year 1, we identified 42 Level I qualitative coding themes. After reviewing the themes and discussion, we selected themes that were well represented and fit with our line of inquiry. We used the themes to conduct Level II coding, rereading the transcripts and extracting quotations related to each of the six themes. We cleaned each quote, removing extraneous utterances, providing parenthetical contextual cues when appropriate, and ensured that the quotes were thematically relevant and broadly represented for both sites. For Level III coding, we united extractions created by all three team members and when appropriate, we sorted them into subthemes in order to achieve better internal thematic coherence.

For Aim #1, participant interviews and focus groups informed us about participant knowledge, activation, and motivation, and the barriers to both. For Aim #2, we learned about challenges to reducing A1c, making lifestyle changes (including eating—which impacts BMI), and mental health challenges related to reducing stress and depression. For Aim #3, from program staff interviews, we learned about the specifics of each program as discussed in the program assessment section below. From participant interviews and focus groups, we learned about the importance of social support and participant attitudes toward and experience with their program.

Importance of social support

Participants at both sites discussed the importance of social support in helping them deal with and manage their diabetes. Support was indicated to relate to having someone who was interested in their health and well-being, and “being there” for them was identified as an important motivator. Support related to food involved helping the patient participant shop for and prepare diabetes-appropriate food, helping them develop better food-related habits (such as not keeping chocolate or junk food in the house), monitoring what the patient participant was eating or purchasing, helping them make rules or a plan for shopping and eating, scolding them if they tried to break the “rules,” and having them watch educational programs about diabetes, about the politics of the food system that contribute to disease, or about how bad junk food is for you. One key thing that many social supports do is to change their own diet and eating habits in order to support the patient participant in their struggle with diabetes. In addition, social support provided by the programs was identified as very important.

Motivations for change

We identified things that motivate people to lifestyle changes (Table 7), including the importance of being able to work, fear of illness or diabetes complications, and for the benefit of others, especially children. While participants at both sites shared sentiments related to fear of being unable to work, we noted a difference between the sites, with the participants at CCM expressing more concern about what might happen if they were unable to work.

Understanding of/knowledge about diabetes

We identified themes related to diabetes knowledge (Table 8). Some participants had knowledge from personal experience with a family member. Many participants discussed having a lack of knowledge or poor understanding of diabetes.

Denial

Denial was another common theme (Table 9). Participants described how they did not take the diagnosis seriously, or felt they could not deal with the required changes and chose to ignore it or disbelieve it.

Barriers to change

We asked participants if it was difficult to make the necessary behavior changes and they identified three types of challenges: 1.) Exercise is hard—lack of time or energy primarily because of long work hours. 2.) Dietary changes are hard—it is “boring,” the small portions, “addiction to food,” taste, custom. 3.) Social challenges—other people don’t understand, you don’t want to offend other people, being around other people who are eating unhealthy foods makes it harder for you to avoid them. Although it can be difficult to make lifestyle changes, people see that changing habits, andeating healthier in particular, as an investment. It is a little more expensive now, but they understand that it is preventative.

Agency

Some participants were very motivated and felt they have a lot of control over their health. This involved acceptance and feeling they have agency to manage the condition and prevent complications if they take personal responsibility. Others described frustration or resignation—a feeling that diabetes is controlling them or that it is something external happening to them.

Aim #1: Primary outcomes

The primary analysis for Aim #1 was to measure and compare improvement in patient participant capacity for diabetes self-management as indicated by improvement at 6 months in diabetes knowledge and patient activation. For each outcome variable the resulting model is interpreted for model fit, time-by-program interaction, main effects not associated with interactions, and interactions (Fig 3A). Model fit assumptions were not violated.

Fig 3. Comparison of results from the Diabetes knowledge questionnaire (DKQ). Scores are taubluated and primary contrast over time between programs. (A) Longitudinal plot. (top) The diamonds are means by program over time, thin lines are trajectories for each PP. (bottom) Marginal histograms of DKQ scores for each program and time point. (B) Black dots are least-squares means, 95% confidence intervals represented with blue bars and red comparison arrows for pairwise comparisons between means. If an arrow from one mean overlaps an arrow from another group, the difference is not statistically significant. (C) Primary contrast testing whether the change between time points (e.g., 6 mo vs 0 mo) for CCM was different than the same change for DSMS. If the 95% confidence interval does not overlap 0, then there is an (uncorrected) difference between programs over time. Since the 95% CI crosses zero in all three contrasts, there is no difference between the programs for DKQ. DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model.

Changes in diabetes knowledge

Scores on the PP DKQ-23 were used to measure diabetes knowledge. Scores increased for patient participants in both programs. Both sites increased their knowledge from baseline to 3 months (approximately 0.75 to 1 point) and sustained their improvement through the end of the study. There was no Time-by-Program interaction (Fig 3C, p-value = 0.265), so both programs changed to similar extents over time; in particular, the Baseline-to-6-month change for CCM DKQ-23 (a 23-point scale) compared to the change for DSMS was 0.483, 95% CI (-0.119, 1.086). DSMS scored approximately 1.25 points higher than CCM (Fig 3B, p-value = 0.0009).

The multivariate analysis (Table 10, contrasts not shown) revealed that the PP DKQ-23 Score was positively related to SSP DKQ-23 Score (regression coefficient (coef) = 0.198, 95% CI: (0.137, 0.258)), negatively related to Age (coef = -0.0266, 95% CI: (-0.0544, 0.00127)), and positively related to Education (High School and lower categories had lower scores than Some College and above, about 1.75 difference). PP DKQ-23 Score was negatively related to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cultural Competence Set (CAHPS-CC) A and B Communication for CCM (coef = -0.626, 95% CI: (-1.11, -0.14)) but positively related for DSMS (coef = 0.402, 95% CI: (0.0334, 0.77)) (Fig 3).

Patient activation

We used the PAM-10 as a proxy for measuring the patient’s capacity for self-managing their diabetes, conceptualized as patient activation. The average PAM-10 score was 77.3, with the vast majority scoring at Level 3 (taking action) or 4 (maintaining behaviors and pushing further). Patients in the CCM compared to patients in the DSMS scored higher by four points with more patients at Level 4 (72.6% vs 55.0%) and with fewer at Levels 1 and 2 (1.8% vs 5.8%) (Table 2).

We used the PAM-10 numeric score because it is more sensitive to detecting differences than rounding the scores into four activation categories. PAM-10 scores increased for PPs in both programs (Fig 4A). Model fit assumptions were not violated. There was no Time-by-Program interaction (Fig 4C, p-value = 0.612), so both programs changed to similar extents over time; in particular, the Baseline-to-6-month change for CCM compared to the change for DSMS was -1.278, 95% CI (-4.56, 2.01). DSMS PAM scores (scale from 0 to 100) were close to 77 at baseline and CCM was close to 78 at baseline, but both increased to 971 about 82 at 3 months and beyond (Fig 4B). Both sites increased their activation scores by 6 months (p-value < 0.0001). The multivariate analysis (Table 11, contrasts not shown) revealed that the Patient Activation (PAM-10) was positively related to age (0.162, 95% CI: 0.046, 0.277), negatively related to education (Bachelor’s or higher was lowest at 75, some high school through some college were medium at 80, and 8th grade or lower was highest at 86), negatively related to BMI (coef = -0.183, 95% CI: -0.378, 0.012), and negatively related to poverty ratio (-1.9, 95% CI: -3.94, 0.141). Patient activation (PAM-10) was positively related to social support for DSMS (coef = 0.172, 95% CI: (0.105, 0.238)) but only slightly positive for CCM (coef = 0.0526, 95% CI: - 0.0205, 0.126). Lastly, patient activation was positively related to CAHPS G Trust for DSMS (coef = 3.67, 95% CI: 2.18, 5.15) but not related for CCM (coef = -0.70, 95% CI: -2.63, 1.23).

Fig 4. Patient Activation Measure (PAM-10) primary contrast over time.. (See Fig 3 for panel descriptions.) All three contrasts overlap 0; thus there is no statistically significant difference between them. DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model, PAM-10, Patient Activation Measure.

Aim #2: Secondary outcomes

Our second aim was to measure and compare PP success at diabetes self-management as indicated by improvement at 6 months in A1c, depression index score, and body mass index (BMI).

Changes in A1c

A1c on the log₂ scale (log₂ (A1c), here called “A1c”) had an initial slight decrease for patient participants in both programs (Fig 5A²), and the A1c distribution was hyper-exponential showing right skewness even after log transformation. Model fit assumptions were not violated. There was no Time-by-Program interaction (Fig 5C, p-value = 0.616), so both programs changed to similar extents over time; in particular, the Baseline-to-6-month change for CCM compared to the change for DSMS was -0.0165, 95% CI (-0.0786, 0.0456). DSMS was slightly higher than CCM for the study period. Both sites decreased their A1c from baseline to 3 months and sustained their improvement throughout the end of the study (Fig 5B).

Fig 5. Analysis of A1c measures. A1c longitudinal data and primary contrast over time between programs. (See Fig 3 for panel descriptions.) DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; A1c, meaure of glycoylated hemoglobin proportional to chronic glucose levels.

The multivariate analysis (Table 12, contrasts not shown) revealed that A1c was positively related to depression (coef = 0.0204, 95% CI: (-0.00129, 0.0422)). A1c was positively related to PP DKQ-23 Score at baseline, but much less so at follow-up, and negatively related to SSP DKQ-23 score at baseline, with slightly positive relationships at 3 months and beyond. Males started with higher A1c than females at baseline (2.99 vs 2.89) but both reduced to similar levels sustained from 3 months (2.84), negatively related to age for DSMS (coef = -0.008, 95% CI: (-0.0132, -0.00279)), neutral for CCM (coef = -0.000921, 95% CI: (-0.00745, 0.00561)), higher for females at DSMS than at CCM (diff = 0.14, p-value = 0.0123), but for males about the same between programs. A1c was strongly negatively related to BMI at baseline (coef = -0.0128, 95% CI: (-0.0198, -0.00578)) than at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups (coefs = -0.0060, -0.0070, and -0.0059, respectively), and negatively related to BMI at the CCM site (coef = - 0.0147, 95% CI: (-0.0242, -0.00516)) but neutral at the DSMS site (coef = -0.00117, 95% CI: (-0.00988, 0.00753)).

Changes in Depression

Overall, depression as measured by the PHQ-9 and transformed as log2(PHQ-9 + 2), showed an initial decrease from baseline to 3 months which sustained over time (Fig 6A³). Model fit assumptions were not violated. There was a Time-by-Program interaction (p-value = 0.006) because the degree of change over time differed between programs (Fig 6C); in particular, the Baseline-to-6-month change for CCM compared to the change for DSMS was -0.266, 95% CI (-0.464, -0.0669). CCM started lower than DSMS and showed a large initial decrease and continued downward throughout the study while DSMS showed a small initial decrease through

6 months, then started increasing again by 12 months (Fig 6B), nearly rebounding to their baseline levels.

Fig 6. Depression scores constrasted between treatment groups. Depression (PHQ-9) longitudinal data and primary contrast over time between programs. (See Fig 3 for panel descriptions.) DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; PHQ-9, Depression scores.

The multivariate analysis (Table 13, contrasts not shown) revealed that depression was negatively related to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cultural Competence Set (CAHPS-CC) A and B Communication (coef = -0.175, 95% CI: (-0.29, -0.0605)), negatively related to CAHPS G Trust (coef = -0.117, 95% CI: (-0.23, -0.0047)), and negatively related to Patient PAM-10 Score (coef = -0.0103, 95% CI: (-0.0145, -0.00605)) varying slightly over time. Depression was negatively related to social support PAM-10 score which describes the social support’s perception of the patient participants activation, with the strongest negative relationship at baseline but positive at 6 months, positively related to age at 6 months and negatively related at baseline and 12 months. Depression was negatively related to patient participant PAM-10 Score for DSMS (coef = -0.0068, 95% CI: (-0.0112, -0.00243)), but neutral for CCM (coef = 0.00156, 95% CI: (-0.00319, 0.00631)), and negatively related to income-to-federal poverty level ratio for DSMS (coef = -0.295, 95% CI: (-0.488, -0.102)) but positively related for CCM (coef = 0.196, 95% CI: (-0.0966, 0.489)).

Changes in Body Mass Index (BMI)

BMI values were very consistent over time (Fig 7A). Model fit assumptions were not violated. There was no Time-by-Program interaction (Fig 7C, p-value = 0.620), so patient participants in both programs changed to a similar extent over time; in particular, the Baseline-to-6-month change for CCM compared to the change for DSMS was -0.148, 95% CI (-0.204, 0.501). DSMS had slightly higher mean BMI (difference=1.271 BMI) than CCM across the study period Fig 7B).

Fig 7. Analysis of body mass index (BMI) over time and comparison between cohorts. BMI outcome longitudinal model data and primary contrast over time between programs. (See Fig 3 for panel descriptions.) DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; BMI, body mass index.

A multivariate analysis (Table 14, contrasts not shown) revealed that BMI was negatively related to age (coef = -0.0844, 95% CI: (-0.157, -0.011)) with the effect only slightly varying over time, and positively related to PP DKQ-23 Score (coef = 0.0481, 95% CI: (0.00373, 0.0925)). BMI was positively related to depression for DSMS (coef = 0.17, 95% CI: (-0.0142, 0.357)) but neutral for CCM (coef = -0.0402, 95% CI: (-0.238, 0.157)).

Subpopulation considerations: Results of heterogeneity of treatment effect

Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect was assessed with the same longitudinal model structure with a time-by-program interaction but included only covariates for language, gender, and poverty and their interactions with each time and program.

Associations included DKQ and PAM with language, A1c with gender, and BMI with poverty, but depression had no associations. DKQ-23 for patient participants speaking “English, only” and “Spanish and English” were both about 1.8 points higher than “Spanish, only” (roughly, 15.7 vs 13.9). PAM-10 for patient participants speaking “Spanish, only” (coef = 83.6, 95% CI: (81.4, 85.8)) was about 5 points higher than “English, only” (coef = 78.7, 95% CI: (74.8, 82.6)), with “Spanish and English” (coef = 81.4, 95% CI: (77.8, 85)) being in the middle and not statistically different from either “only” category.

A1c at baseline for males (coef = 2.99, 95% CI: (2.89, 3.08)) was higher than females (2.9, 95% CI: (2.84, 2.96)), but both genders had similar A1c values from 3 months through 12 months (roughly, coef = 2.83, 95% CI: (2.73, 2.93)). A1c for females at DSMS (coef = 2.91, 95% CI: (2.84, 2.98)) was higher than at CCM (coef = 2.78, 95% CI: (2.7, 2.86)), but males at both programs had similar A1c values (roughly, coef = 2.88, 95% CI: (2.74, 3.00)).

PHQ-9 was not related to poverty, gender, or language, only to program and time. BMI was higher for patient participants above the FPL at DSMS (coef = 34.3, 95% CI: (32.6, 35.9)) than at CCM (coef = CCM = 30.2, 95% CI: (27.1, 33.4)), but about the same between programs for patient participants below the FPL (both roughly coef = 32.8, 95% CI: (31.5, 34.2)).

Outcome changes by baseline PAM, A1c, PHQ-9, and BMI categories are grouped by their baseline categories and plotted over time to show differential effects in Fig 8⁴. These analyses should be interpreted cautiously because of the small sample sizes.

PAM overall trends showed a slight increase for both programs, but there are larger increases in the few patient participants who were lowest at baseline with very significant and greater change at CCM. There was no change for those patient participants who were already activated in either program, which represented the vast majority.

A1c remained consistently low in both programs for prediabetes and diabetes patient participants who started the program with lower A1c levels (<9). Both programs had large effects on higher A1c levels (≥9), with the CCM program showing the strongest effect. Neither program resulted in A1c reaching normal glycemic levels of <5.6, but at CCM high A1cs dropped below 9, which is clinically meaningful. Both programs kept those with prediabetes from elevating into the diabetes range and kept lower diabetes range scores from elevating higher. This is also clinically meaningful. While CCM patient participants, even those entering at the higher levels, dropped below 9, the higher A1c group in the DSMS program did not achieve that degree of diabetes control. The largest effect was seen at the 3-month time point in both programs.

PHQ-9 depression scores showed the most difference between baseline and subsequent time points in CCM, with some smaller improvements in DSMS. Again, the biggest change was in the first three months with some continuing improvement at 6 months. The least depressed group did not improve further.

BMI was static in both programs, remaining approximately constant at baseline and at 12 months, (32.6 and 33.6 respectively). PAM-10 trajectories are similar between programs (Fig 9). Patient participants in the highest-A1c baseline category at CCM had greater decreases in A1c than at DSMS, with more than half of them lowering below 9 (Fig 10⁵). PHQ-9 shows that depression is higher with Baseline A1c, at Program DSMS depression is higher than at CCM overall, decreases at CCM are greater at all A1c baseline categories with median PHQ-9 values ending below 5 for all categories, while DSMS ends below 5 in only the lowest A1c category and all categories showing increases in depression by 12 months (Fig 11⁶). BMI trajectories are similar between programs with no interpretable pattern (Fig 12).

Fig 8. Comparison across four outcome measures (PAM-10, A1c, PHQ-9, and BMI). The mean change over time for each group is defined by their baseline group category. PAM-10 levels: 0.0 - 45.1, Level 1 Disengaged and overwhelmed; 47.4 - 52.9, Level 2 Becoming aware, but still struggling; 56.0 - 72.1, Level 3 Taking action; and 75.5 - 100, Level 4 Maintaining behaviours and pushing further. A1c levels: 0 - 5.7, Neither; 5.7 - 6.4, Pre-diabetes; and 6.4 - 14+, Diabetes. PHQ-9 levels: 0 - 4, None-minimal; 5 - 9, Mild; 10 - 14, Moderate; 15 - 19, Moderately Severe; and 20 - 27, Severe. BMI levels: 0 - 18.5, Underweight; 18.5 - 25, Normal or Healthy Weight; 25 - 30, Overweight; and 30+, Obese. DKQ Score has no defined levels so is not shown. DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; PAM-10, Patient activation measure; PHQ-9, Depression severity (PHQ-9); BMI, body mass index.

Fig 9. PAM-10 outcome by A1c Baseline category. Small improvement in most A1c catagories occurs in both groups in the first 3 months and in the lowest category over the year. Numbers of subjects in each A1c category for each cohort appears above the trajectory. (See Fig 8 for categories.). DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; PAM-10, Patient activation measure.

Fig 10. A1c outcome by A1c Baseline category. Patient participants in the highest-A1c baseline category at CCM had greater decreases in A1c than at DSMS, with more than half of them lowering below 9. (See Fig 8 for categories.) DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model.

Fig 11. PHQ-9 outcome by A1c Baseline category. Depression is higher with Baseline A1c, decreases at CCM are greater at all A1c baseline categories. (See Fig 8 for categories.) DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; Depression severity (PHQ-9).

Fig 12. BMI outcome by A1c Baseline category.BMI trajectories are similar between programs. (See Fig 8 for categories.) DSMS, diabetes self-management support empowerment model; CCM, chronic care model; BMI, body mass index.

Aim #3: Culture and context of programs

Our third aim was to characterize the ways that two distinct culturally competent diabetes self-management programs (DSMS and CCM) interface with patient participant culture and socioeconomic context.

Program assessments

The section on “comparators” provides a description of each program. Both emphasize the importance of understanding patient needs, including from a cultural and contextual perspective. One staff member at DSMS said that they do not just talk about what to eat or not eat—they cover depression, stress management, and difficult topics like erectile dysfunction, kidney failure, and amputation. They do a meditation and deep breathing exercise to help people learn alternative methods for stress reduction, they encourage the patients to bring a social support with them to the classes (without charge), and they were in the process of developing a relationship with the local food bank in order to better address patient needs in relations to diet and food insecurity. A strength of the DSMS program from the perspective of program staff is their emphasis on identifying individual needs and tailoring the experience for each patient with a heavy focus on helping people learn how to set goals. The group dynamic of the classes was identified as a strength. Challenges identified primarily related to lack of time, insufficient staff, space, funding, and resources. The DSMS program made some alterations to the way they delivered the program during the middle of the project. These changes were required by guidance from the ADA to maintain program accreditation.

The strengths of the CCM program from the perspective of staff are the relationship of trust that they enjoy in the community, the fact that the staff are both “in” and “of” the community, and that the services provided are holistic and wrap-around. The challenges identified were lack of financial resources and a need for more staff and space. At CCM, because the program is community-led and community-run, the program focuses holistically on the patient and their family, and the CCM facility has a feel more like somebody’s home than that of an office or a clinic. A broad range of services is available, in addition to the ongoing diabetes classes, including primary care, dental care, psychiatric care, a food coop, children’s educational activities and classes, and exercise classes. CCM is operated by a faith-based nonprofit, so the spiritual dimension of people’s lives is incorporated if the patient would like to “sit and pray” alone or with others. Stress management is covered in the diabetes classes, and mental and behavioral health services are available. Through a number of CHW-run programs on site, CCM screens patients for social needs and provides navigation, including related to domestic violence, legal services, education, parenting, substance misuse, housing insecurity, food insecurity, and access to safety net programs like SNAP, WIC, prescription discount programs, utilities support programs, and Medicaid. CCM does not accept insurance, and the fee for services is nominal or waived, depending on patient circumstance and capacity to pay.

A primary difference between the two sites is in relation to language—a core element of program cultural competence. At DSMS, the default program language spoken is English, but approximately 25% of patients are Spanish speakers, with a smaller number monolingual Spanish speakers. All of the handouts DSMS uses are available in Spanish, including recipes, but only one staff person speaks any Spanish. A primary concern among DSMS staff was the inability of the program to hire a Spanish-speaking diabetes educator to lead the classes because of budgetary constraints. Monolingual Spanish-speaking diabetes patients are given a truncated delivery of the class using an interpreter.

The default language at CCM is Spanish but there is significant capacity for bilingual communication. The vast majority of CCM patients are Spanish-speaking—either monolingual or bilingual. All of the staff at CCM are Spanish-speaking, and most are bilingual in Spanish and English. A few staff are monolingual Spanish speakers. Volunteer medical providers who see patients at CCM (primarily MDs from UNM) and volunteer educators (UNM pharmacy students, medical students, and family medicine residents) are a mix of bilingual and non-Spanish-speaking. However, a translator is used if needed.

Cultural competence surveys

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cultural Competence Set (CAHPS-CC) composite scores for five domains had a similar pattern between programs. Overall quality of care, communication, equitable treatment, and trust were rated very high by participants in both programs. Overall quality of care (A), Patient Participant-Provider Communication (B), and Trust (G) were scored higher by patient participants at CCM than at DSMS. Interpreter Services (H) was scored slightly lower among patient participants who required interpreter services, but more negative for patient participants at DSMS than at CCM (Table 15).