Display options
Share it on

Prev Med Rep. 2021 May 18;23:101407. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101407. eCollection 2021 Sep.

Disparities in self-management outcomes by limited English proficiency among adults with heart disease.

Preventive medicine reports

Phuong Nguyen, Melody K Schiaffino, Brandy J Lipton

Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA.
  2. Center for Health Equity, Education and Research (CHEER), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
  3. Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

PMID: 34136340 PMCID: PMC8178122 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101407

Abstract

There are significant disparities in cardiovascular health outcomes by limited English proficiency (LEP). Self-management plans (SMPs) are associated with better patient outcomes, however little is known about the association of LEP with having an SMP among adults with heart disease. This study examined this association using 2013-2016 California Health Interview Survey data. Among adults that received an SMP, we also examined whether they had a hard copy SMP (print or electronic vs. none), and whether they reported confidence in their ability to manage their heart disease. Our sample included a total of 9102 adults, including 1232 LEP and 7870 English proficient (EP) adults. LEP was associated with significantly lower odds of SMP receipt (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 0.46, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.68). LEP and EP adults who received an SMP were similarly likely to have a hard copy SMP and report confidence in heart disease management. The finding that LEP adults were less likely than EP adults to receive an SMP may represent a missed opportunity to improve heart health outcomes for this group.

© 2021 The Author(s).

Keywords: Communication barrier; Heart disease; Limited English proficiency; Self-management

Conflict of interest statement

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.

References

  1. Med Care. 2002 Sep;40(9):794-811 - PubMed
  2. Diabetes Care. 2006 Apr;29(4):823-9 - PubMed
  3. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Aug 1;35(8):1399-403 - PubMed
  4. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2:283-8 - PubMed
  5. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2020 Apr 1;6(2):121-129 - PubMed
  6. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Dec;18(12):3468-75 - PubMed
  7. Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):e56-e528 - PubMed
  8. Med Care. 2003 Jun;41(6):699-701 - PubMed
  9. Circulation. 2016 Mar 22;133(12):1189-98 - PubMed
  10. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2015;34(3-4):159-72 - PubMed
  11. BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Dec 19;13:122 - PubMed
  12. Pediatrics. 2008 Apr;121(4):e900-5 - PubMed
  13. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 May;110(5 Suppl):S62-7 - PubMed
  14. JAMA. 2019 Oct 22;322(16):1605-1607 - PubMed
  15. Ethn Dis. 2020 Sep 24;30(4):603-610 - PubMed
  16. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2016 Jul-Sep;3(3):259-265 - PubMed
  17. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Oct 03;3(5):259-68 - PubMed
  18. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 19;155(2):97-107 - PubMed
  19. Cardiol Clin. 2010 Nov;28(4):655-63 - PubMed
  20. Front Public Health. 2016 Sep 12;4:195 - PubMed
  21. Health Equity. 2018 May 01;2(1):82-89 - PubMed
  22. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Sep;20(9):800-6 - PubMed
  23. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Jul - Aug;14(4):351-354 - PubMed
  24. Policy Brief UCLA Cent Health Policy Res. 2009 Jan;(PB2009-1):1-8 - PubMed
  25. Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2011 Oct;2(4):320-332 - PubMed
  26. Gerontologist. 1992 Aug;32(4):438-43 - PubMed
  27. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2015;11(3):238-45 - PubMed

Publication Types