Table 2.
Adjusted odds ratios of good versus poor intermediate outcome control@ in the absence of selected risk factors, by race
| Blacks | Whites | |
|---|---|---|
| Risk factors | Odds of good versus poor control if risk factor not present OR, 95% CI |
Odds of good versus poor control if risk factor not present OR, 95% CI |
| Depression | 2.28 (1.09-4.75)* | 1.04 (0.63-1.72) |
| Untreated depression | 0.43 (0.17-1.11) | 0.68 (0.34-1.36) |
| Low self-efficacy for reducing cardiovascular risk | 0.60 (0.30-1.18) | 0.95 (0.59-1.54) |
| Medication adherence | ||
| Ran out of medications | 1.18 (0.61-2.30) | 1.29 (0.83-2.02) |
| Missed medication doses | 1.96 (1.01-3.81)* | 1.13 (0.72-1.78) |
| Provider communication skills# | ||
| Poor general clarity | 1.04 (0.73-1.47) | 1.09 (0.86-1.39) |
| Not eliciting patient concerns | 0.80 (0.56-1.15) | 1.05 (0.83-1.34) |
| Not discussing patient preferences | 1.11 (0.72-1.71) | 1.05 (0.78-1.40) |
| Not discussing barriers to medication adherence | 1.20 (0.77-1.87) | 0.94 (0.71-1.25) |
Results generated from nine separate models, each including an interaction term for race*risk factor
Adjusted for age, sex, education, income, and study site.
@
Patients with good intermediate outcomes met each of the following criteria: HbA1c<7.0%, SBP<130 mmHg, and LDL cholesterol<130 mg/dl.
*
P<0.05
#
Subscales of provider communication skills are continuous variables, and the results shown represent the odds of good control at the 25th percentile vs. the 75th percentile, within each racial group.
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.