Abstract
Purpose
To elucidate barriers and facilitators related to glaucoma medication adherence among African Americans (AA) with glaucoma and to elicit input from a community-based participatory research team in order to guide the development of a culturally informed, health promotion program for improving glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s.
Methods
The nominal group technique (NGT), a highly structured focus group methodology, was implemented with 12 separate groups of AA’s patients with glaucoma (N = 89) to identify barriers and facilitators related to glaucoma medication usage. Participant rank-ordering votes were summed across groups and categorized into themes. Next, an individually and culturally targeted health promotion program promoting appropriate medication adherence was developed based on focus group results and input from a community-based participatory research team.
Results
The top five barriers included problems with 1) forgetfulness, 2) side effects, 3) cost/affordability, 4) eye drop administration, and 5) the eye drop schedule. The most salient top five facilitators were 1) fear or thoughts about the consequences of not taking eye drops, 2) use of memory aids, cues, or strategies, 3) maintaining a regular routine or schedule for eye drop administration, 4) ability to afford eye drops, and 5) keeping eye drops in the same area. The resulting health promotion program was based on a multi-component empowerment framework that included glaucoma education, motivational interviewing, and problem-solving training to improve glaucoma medication adherence.
Conclusions
Barriers and facilitators related to glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s are multifactorial. Based on the NGT themes and input from the community-based participatory research team, a culturally informed, health promotion program was designed and holds great promise for improving medication adherence among this vulnerable population.
Keywords: medication adherence, focus groups, community-based participatory research, African Americans, glaucoma
Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible vision loss in the United States and is expected to affect 3 million persons in 2020, creating an immense and costly public health challenge.1,2 The most common form of glaucoma is primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) which requires long-term ocular hypotensive medical treatment, surgery, or both in order to maintain intraocular pressure, thus preventing optic nerve damage and blindness.3 African Americans (AA) represent a vulnerable segment of the population who experience a disproportionate burden of serious chronic health conditions, glaucoma included.4,5 Cross-sectional studies and those using national datasets estimate that glaucoma-related vision impairment is between six and eight times more common among AA’s than among Caucasians.6 Disproportionate rates of glaucoma treatment have also been found, with AA’s receiving less potentially sight-saving care for open-angle glaucoma compared to Caucasians.7
To preserve vision and minimize deterioration, successful long-term pharmacological therapy management is necessary to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). This requires patient adherence to prescribed ophthalmic eye drops as the treatment of choice. The current generation of prostaglandin IOP-lowering drugs offer once per day dosing regimens and reduced adverse effects compared with preceding drug therapies.8 Clinical trials demonstrate that lowering IOP with pharmacologic therapies reduces vision loss in ocular hypertension.9,10 Thus, consistent adherence to such medications is critical for delaying disease progression and vision loss.
Despite the availability of effective topical glaucoma therapies, many patients do not use ocular hypotensives in the manner prescribed by ophthalmologists and optometrists.11,12 Non-adherence among patients with glaucoma has been reported to range as high as 80% across 34 studies.13 Recent reports have found that more than 90% of patients with glaucoma fail to refill their ocular medications continuously during the initial year of therapy and that less than 60% continue to refill eye drop prescriptions at one year.14 Only a few studies have examined barriers related to regular glaucoma adherence. Of the barriers identified, the most salient include the cost of glaucoma medications (e.g., estimated $1,198 up to 1,290 during the first year),3,15 forgetfulness, and problems with drop application, among others.16,17 While informative, these studies have been predominantly conducted among Caucasians populations.
Emerging evidence suggests health disparities in glaucoma medication adherence. Our group recently conducted a study of objective medication adherence with topical glaucoma therapy in a sample of 113 patients (46 AA, 67 Caucasian) with POAG.11 Results showed that Caucasians met the criteria for full treatment adherence on 71.2% of treatment days, whereas AA’s were adherent for only 53.4% of treatment days. It was also found that race significantly predicted treatment adherence while statistically controlling for age, gender, income, education, number of oral medications, severity of disease, and IOP. Race was the only significant independent predictor of glaucoma medication adherence. These results highlight the disproportionate rates of glaucoma medication non-adherence among AA’s compared to Caucasians. Unfortunately, lacking are studies examining both the barriers as well as facilitators among AA’s needed to further understand the scope of reasons for this disparity.
From a historical perspective, health disparities among AA’s can be traced back to a legacy of slavery, racism, oppression, inequality, and social discrimination.18–20 Unfortunately, many of these problems are still pervasive to this day and continue to shape the experiences and behavioral responses among both minority and non-minority groups.21 Oppressed groups may be at particular risk of feeling powerless over their health because of negative self-evaluations, negative experiences with healthcare, and social barriers that impede effective actions.22 Ongoing problems with oppression that contribute to health disparities among AA’s have strong implications for empowerment-based approaches to change behavior.23,24 Among the many definitions of empowerment is the ability to influence people, organizations, and/or the environment affecting one’s life.25 The personal level of empowerment is concerned with the individual’s feelings of personal power and self-efficacy.26 Approaches based on this perspective utilize techniques to facilitate the transition from powerlessness to empowerment by raising consciousness, motivation for change, identifying and building upon existing strengths, training members in problem-solving, mobilizing resources, and analyzing how powerlessness is affecting their situations.27 Because non-adherent behavior is multifactorial in nature, research has shown that multi-component health promotion programs that include education and motivation as well as training in strategies to more effectively self-manage health conditions are most effective when program components relate to the population of interest and are individually tailored.28,29 As such, an empowerment framework may have great potential to contribute to a reduction in gaps in health status among persons from vulnerable populations.
While a few health promotion interventions have been studied to date, limitations exist in that they are not designed for AA’s (i.e., tested on Caucasian patient populations; demonstrate higher attrition rates among AA’s than Caucasians) and/or have methodological limitations (i.e., utilize impersonal approaches such as interaction with automated voice recognition technology; work to prepare readiness for change versus skill acquisition; rely upon self-report measures of improvements of adherence; and/or do not take into consideration variation of individual’s circumstances influencing glaucoma medication management).30–33 Thus, in order to reduce the health disparity in glaucoma medication adherence, the design of culturally meaningful, health promotion programs based on input from direct consumers (AA patients with glaucoma) are needed.34,35 Here we describe the formative research process of developing a culturally informed, health promotion program to improve medication adherence among AA’s. First, we conducted several structured focus groups with AA’s glaucoma patients in order to identify barriers as well as facilitators related to glaucoma medication adherence. Second, we used the resulting information, along with input from an AA consumer-based advisory board and our research team, to develop culturally meaningful program materials (i.e., health educator manual, patient workbook/worksheets, educational resources) and to guide the selection of a theoretical approach consistent with the empowerment framework.
METHODS
Participants
This study was approved by the university institutional review board for human use and adhered to the tenants of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study sample consisted of participants recruited from the Glaucoma Service, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Eligibility criteria for study inclusion were: 1) self-reported AA race, 2) age > 21 years old, 3) diagnosed with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in one or both eyes for at least 1 year minimum, 4) using or prescribed a prostaglandin analog 5) English speaking; and 6) cognitively oriented and able to communicate. A medical chart review of persons who had been seen in the Glaucoma Service over the past year, prescribed glaucoma medication, and were diagnosed with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension was conducted as part of an initial screen. A letter was then mailed (N = 317) and followed up with a telephone call to determine eligibility. During the follow-up phone call, 127 patients (40.1%) were further screened for eligibility and 190 (59.9%) were not screened (i.e., disconnected telephone number, deceased, no returned call after messages were left, undeliverable address, or refused to hear more about the study). Of the remaining 127 patients, 120 were eligible and 7 were ineligible (N = 4 had significant cognitive problems, N = 2 were not AA, N = 1 was not prescribed glaucoma medication). Of the 120 eligible participants, 98 enrolled and attended a focus group (82%) and 22 patients either no showed or canceled and did not reschedule (18%).
Enrolled participants were randomly scheduled to participate in one of the available focus groups depending upon their preference until the selection of times/days for the groups were filled. Given the random nature of scheduling, the make-up of the groups represented a mix in terms of gender, age, and socio-demographic background. The average size of the groups was approximately 6 patients with a range of 5 to 10 patients. An initial focus group was conducted to pilot test the protocol (N = 9) but was not part of focus group data collection. The actual length of each group was approximately 2 hours. Given the structured nature of the NGT procedure, the discussion process for each question typically lasted one hour, and participants received monetary compensation. Recruitment occurred over the spring of 2009, and the focus groups were conducted across the remaining months in 2009. The development of the health promotion program was conducted over the following year.
Procedure
Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
Prior research illustrates the utility of structured focus groups in identifying issues facing persons with vision impairment36–38 and other chronic health conditions.39–41 One approach in particular that has been used in a variety health research topics is known as the nominal group technique (NGT).39,42 The NGT is a highly structured and effective format useful for eliciting and systematically organizing perceptions among participants by gathering equally weighted responses that offer a valid representation of group views.43 NGT has been used as a consensus-building tool to represent a diverse range of views particularly as it relates to reaching underserved populations such as racial/ethnic minorities.28,34,35,44,45 Researchers have used NGT in health research because of its usefulness in combining both quantitative and qualitative methodology to achieve group consensus in a structured manner.39,46,47 When applied in the formative research phase, the information obtained can be used to guide the development and/or modification of programs targeted to the population of interest.28,35,46 For the study, a total of 12 focus groups were conducted. Background demographic and health-related data was collected over the telephone after participation in one of the focus groups. A summary of the steps involved in the NGT procedure are highlighted in Table 1.
Table 1.
STEP 1
|
STEP 2
|
STEP 3
|
STEP 4
|
STEP 5
|
The same steps were followed for a second question posed to each group: “What types of things make it easier for you to take your eye drop medications as prescribed?”
Development a Health Promotion Program
Upon completion of data collection for the focus groups, a small consumer-based advisory board (CBAB) of AA’s with glaucoma convened as part of a community-based participatory research approach to integrate information summarized from the focus group meetings and to further understand how AA cultural experiences and perspectives related to health care (i.e., socioeconomic inequalities, caregiving responsibilities, history of racism, views of health care systems, health, and medication) might effect adoption of the program materials. These persons had previously participated in another project in which we designed culturally relevant social support group materials and activities (UAB CONNECTIONS) for our Department of Ophthalmology’s mental health clinical research services. The CBAB was asked to share their own unique experiences (i.e., quotes, stories, experiences with optometrists and ophthalmologists) and provide input for the content for the health promotion program materials (i.e., role-playing activities; examples of intervention components; wording) in a manner consistent with the values, beliefs, and language of the AA culture. The CBAB and research team also reviewed several theoretical-based, empowerment approaches to serve as the components of the health promotion program. Because of the multifactorial nature of non-adherence, consideration of approaches that provided motivation, education, and training in specific skills for overcoming barriers to glaucoma management were emphasized. After the research team integrated the information, the CBAB provided further feedback, and then a final iteration was conducted resulting in a: 1) health promotion program workbook and worksheets for improving glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s with glaucoma and 2) health educator program manual of procedures.
Statistical Analyses
When all NGT meetings had been conducted, the investigative team employed a formal distillation process to identify the common themes that were generated across the different focus groups. The top five ranked responses per participant for each focus group were analyzed separately, allowing researchers to move between qualitative analysis (coding) and quantitative analysis (counting recording units).48 The next step in the analysis was to combine responses by category theme from all groups and to total the number of rank-ordering votes participants assigned to each category theme. Two researchers began initial categorization of the data by listing and tallying responses across groups. The researchers met to review participants’ responses. After all responses had been coded, they were grouped into category themes and again reviewed until consensus was reached. The iterative process allowed the category themes to emerge.45
RESULTS
Eighty-nine AA glaucoma patients participated in one of 12 focus groups (See Table 2 for sociodemographic characteristics). The average age of participants was 65 years with a range of 38 to 97 (SD = 13.18). Of the 89 participants, 56 were women (62.9%) and 33 were men (37.1%). In terms of educational level, about a quarter of the sample had less than 12 years of education, followed by another quarter having a highschool degree or equivalent, and another quarter having at least 2 years of college or an Associates degree. The remainder of the sample had a bachelors degree and/or some post-graduate coursework without a formal degree, and a smaller subset had a post-graduate degree. The majority of the participants were married and retired. Participants were living with, on average, a total 5 chronic health conditions. In terms of annual household income range, there was wide variety within the sample and representative of different socioeconomic levels. In terms of ocular characteristics, average visual field mean deviation was −5.5 (SD = 8.42) for OD and −7.1 (SD = 9.18) for OS. Lastly, in terms of visual acuity, average logMAR scores were .29 (SD = .26) for OD and .28 for OS (SD = .30).
Table 2.
Demographic Variables | M(SD) or n (%) |
---|---|
Age (M/SD) | 65 years (SD = 11.94) |
Gender, n(%) | |
Women | 56 (62.9%) |
Men | 33 (37.1%) |
Level of Education (M/SD) | |
Less than 12 years (no highschool degree or GED) | 23 (25%.8) |
Highschool degree or GED | 19 (21.3%) |
1 year only of college | 5 (5.6%) |
2 years of college / Associate degree | 15 (16.9%) |
3 years of college | 2 (2.2%) |
Bachelors degree | 7 (7.9%) |
Bachelors degree plus 1 year graduate coursework | 2 (2.2%) |
Masters degree | 9 (10.1%) |
Doctoral degree (PhD, MD, JD, or other) | 3 (3.4%) |
Missing/Unknown | 4 (4.5%) |
Marital Status | |
Single/never married | 12 (13.5%) |
Married | 38 (42.7%) |
Divorced | 12 (13.5%) |
Separated | 2 (2.2%) |
Widowed | 22 (24.7%) |
Missing | 3 (3.4%) |
Employment Status, n(%) | |
Retired | 40 (44.9%) |
Disability | 17 (19.1%) |
Employed Full-Time | 16 (18.0%) |
Employed Part-Time | 7 (7.9%) |
Homemaker | 3 (3.4%) |
Unemployed | 3 (3.4%) |
Missing | 3 (3.4%) |
Annual Household Income, n(%) | |
Less than $15,000 | 26 (29.2%) |
$15,000 to less than $25,000 | 15 (16.9%) |
$25,000 to less than $35,000 | 7 (7.9%) |
$35,000 to less than $50,000 | 13 (14.6%) |
$50,000 to less than $75,000 | 8 (9%) |
$75,000 to less than $100,000 | 4 (4.5%) |
$100,000 or more | 3 (3.4%) |
Unknown or not reported | 10 (11.2%) |
Missing | 3 (3.4%) |
Total number of chronic health conditions | 5 conditions (SD = 2.07) |
Categories/Themes
The five most frequently cited barriers to glaucoma medication management summarized across groups were related to problems with forgetfulness (191 votes), side effects (171 votes), cost/affordability (102 votes), difficulty with drop administration (96 votes), and the eye drop schedule (80 votes). In contrast, the five most frequently cited facilitators to glaucoma medication adherence were fearing or thinking about the consequences of not taking drops (187 votes), using memory aids, cues, and/or strategies (visual/auditory cues, family or friend assistance, and other cues) (153 votes), recognizing the importance of eye drops on eye health/knowledge (127 votes), keeping the same schedule/routine for eye drop administration (117 votes), and being able to afford eye drops (92 votes). See TableS 3 and 4 for a full list of barriers and facilitators and rank-ordering votes across groups.
Table 3.
Rank-Ordering Category Themes and Examples of Barriers Nominated Across Groups (Steps 1 & 2) | Rank-Ordering Votes Across Groups (Step 4) | Sum of Rank-Ordering Votes Across Groups (Step 5) |
---|---|---|
Forgetfulness
|
Rank 5 Sum = 95; Rank 4 Sum = 40; Rank 3 Sum = 36; Rank 2 Sum = 14; Rank 1 Sum = 6 | 191 |
Side effects
|
Rank 5 Sum = 45; Rank 4 Sum = 60; Rank 3 Sum = 36; Rank 2 Sum = 24; Rank 1 Sum = 6 | 171 |
Cost/affordability
|
Rank 5 Sum = 60; Rank 4 Sum = 28; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 6; Rank 1 Sum = 2 | 102 |
Difficulty with drop administration
|
Rank 5 Sum = 40; Rank 4 Sum = 28; Rank 3 Sum = 18; Rank 2 Sum = 8; Rank 1 Sum = 2 | 96 |
Eye drop schedule
|
Rank 5 Sum = 45; Rank 4 Sum = 24; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 3 | 80 |
Low on eye drop medications
|
Rank 5 Sum = 10; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 21; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 2 | 45 |
Lack of understanding or knowledge about eye drop medications and glaucoma
|
Rank 5 Sum = 15; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 9; Rank 2 Sum = 6; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 39 |
Laziness
|
Rank 5 Sum = 15; Rank 4 Sum = 16; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 2 | 36 |
Being out/away or traveling
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 20; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 34 |
Quantity of drops to administer
|
Rank 5 Sum = 15; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 24 |
Being distracted
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 9; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 20 |
Lack of availability
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 12; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 19 |
Listening to or observing others’ experiences
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 14 |
Communication with doctor
|
Rank 5 Sum = 10; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 14 |
Contamination
|
Rank 5 Sum = 10; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 13 |
Busy personal schedule “Being real busy at work” | Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 9 |
Other health issues “Being tired and overwhelmed with other health issues” | Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 9 |
Changing eye medications
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 9 |
Difficulty accepting glaucoma diagnosis
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 7 |
Having to refrigerate drops | Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 6 |
Not feeling any pain | Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 5 |
Difficulty reading print size on label
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 5 |
Managing other eye care issues
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 5 |
Poor tracking of prescription
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 4 |
Eye surgery
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 4 |
Problems with insurance coverage
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 4 |
Taking eye drops too often | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 4 |
Taking steroids (prednisone) | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 1 |
Having multiple eye doctors “I was going to several clinics and getting too many drops” | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 1 |
Thought eye drops were contributing to my headaches | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 1 |
Note. A maximum of up to 6 examples per theme were listed.
Table 4.
Rank-Ordering Category Themes and Examples of Facilitators Nominated Across Groups (Steps 1 & 2) | Rank-Ordering Votes Across Groups (Step 3) |
Sum of Rank-Ordering Votes Across Groups (Step 4) |
---|---|---|
Fearing or thinking about the consequences of not taking eye drops regularly
|
Rank 5 Sum = 115; Rank 4 Sum = 36; Rank 3 Sum = 27; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 5 | 187 |
Memory aids, cues, & strategies
Visual/auditory cues
|
Rank 5 Sum = 40; Rank 4 Sum = 64; Rank 3 Sum = 30; Rank 2 Sum = 14; Rank 1 Sum = 5 | 153 |
Recognizing the importance of eye drops on eye health/knowledge
|
Rank 5 Sum = 70; Rank 4 Sum = 32; Rank 3 Sum = 15; Rank 2 Sum = 8; Rank 1 Sum = 2 | 127 |
Keeping the same schedule/routine for eye drop administration
|
Rank 5 Sum = 50; Rank 4 Sum = 24; Rank 3 Sum = 21; Rank 2 Sum = 16; Rank 1 Sum = 6 | 117 |
Being able to afford eye drops
|
Rank 5 Sum = 25; Rank 4 Sum = 28; Rank 3 Sum = 21; Rank 2 Sum = 14; Rank 1 Sum = 4 | 92 |
Keeping the drops in the same area
|
Rank 5 Sum = 15; Rank 4 Sum = 16; Rank 3 Sum = 18; Rank 2 Sum = 8; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 58 |
Modifying eye drop administration
Personal
|
Rank 5 Sum = 25; Rank 4 Sum = 24; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 6; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 56 |
Encouragement and good communication with doctor
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 28; Rank 3 Sum = 12; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 4 | 49 |
Adjusting to taking drops
|
Rank 5 Sum = 15; Rank 4 Sum = 12; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 30 |
Taking multiple medications
|
Rank 5 Sum = 10; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 28 |
Noticing improved or stable eyesight | Rank 5 Sum = 15; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 27 |
Being health conscious helps me take my drops | Rank 5 Sum = 20; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 26 |
Keeping track on the renewal of prescriptions before eye drops run out
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 12; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 23 |
Physical signs
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 19 |
Availability of my eye drops (i.e., pharmacy) | Rank 5 Sum = 10; Rank 4 Sum = 8; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 18 |
Having extra prescriptions at home and at work
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 12; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 16 |
Praying | Rank 5 Sum = 10; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 10 |
Staying independent | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 9 |
Controlling diabetes
|
Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 9 |
Other patient experiences
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 9 |
Being able to drive | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 8 |
Personal choice in terms of taking the drops despite the drops making my eyes red | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 7 |
Planning to do better makes it easier to take my eye drops | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 6; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 7 |
Advertisements
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 6 |
Minimizing distractions | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 5 |
Coping with side effects
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 4; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 5 |
Numbering eye drop bottles so that I can take them in sequence | Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 5 |
Remembering back to the onset of my glaucoma | Rank 5 Sum = 5; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 5 |
Minimizing side effects
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 1 | 4 |
Keeping colored tops and colored bottles | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 4; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 4 |
Carrying medications when traveling | Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 2 | 4 |
Thinking of famous African Americans with vision loss as a motivation
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 3 |
Staying with the same doctor
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 3; Rank 2 Sum = 0; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 3 |
Having to refrigerate drops
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 2 |
Separating medications
|
Rank 5 Sum = 0; Rank 4 Sum = 0; Rank 3 Sum = 0; Rank 2 Sum = 2; Rank 1 Sum = 0 | 2 |
Note. A maximum of up to 6 examples per theme were listed.
Development of a Health Promotion Program
After a discussion of the focus group findings along with consideration of an approach based on an empowerment framework, a multi-component based health promotion program consisting of 1) glaucoma and glaucoma medication education, 2) problem-solving training (PST), and 3) motivational interviewing (MI) was decided upon.49,50 The materials selected by the CBAB for the educational components included: “Understanding and Living with Glaucoma” and “African Americans and Glaucoma” published by the Glaucoma Research Foundation, the “Glaucoma: What you should know” published by the National Eye Institute (NEI), and a brief quiz, Glaucoma Eye-Q Test, from the National Eye Health Education Program (NEHEP). The team developed program materials utilizing the barriers/facilitators from the NGT, components of MI and PST, and the educational materials. Next, another iteration of the review process was conducted with the CBAB.
Several CBAB members provided comments to enhance the cultural relevance of program materials and engagement in the program. For example, incorporating information related to accessing local resources within the AA community that might influence factors (positive or negative) related to regular medication adherence (i.e., public transportation, community resources in the surrounding urban and rural areas, churches, inspirational motivators that could be incorporated within the materials based on the gospel) was recommended. The CBAB also provided input on the wording and organization of program materials (i.e., presentation of information through the use of storytelling; incorporation of barriers/facilitators from the NGT meetings; taking personal responsibility but also finding additional strength in religion; encouraging potential participants to reach out to community leaders/churches to help with barriers or for ongoing support, particularly when other stressors may interfere with regular management). Furthermore, they addressed potential participation barriers. Because of the distance and costs related to travel, they recommended a predominantly telehealth-based approach. Through further discussion, the CBAB suggested that the initial session be conducted in-clinic to build trust and rapport. The research team also felt this would allow the health educator the opportunity to provide direct training in appropriate eye drop administration, observe any discrepancies in verbal and non-verbal communication with regards to readiness to change as part of MI, and enhance therapeutic rapport as well. Lastly, the CBAB also recommended incorporating a brief quiz on glaucoma for facilitators to understand patient glaucoma knowledge and to also serve as another tool to build initial trust.
The resulting name of the health promotion program was called GOAL, “Glaucoma Management Optimism for African Americans Living with Glaucoma.” An overview of the GOAL protocol and goals for each session can be found in Table 5.
Table 5.
In-Person Session 1
|
Phone Session 2
|
Phone Sessions 3
|
Phone Sessions 4
|
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to use formative research (NGT focus groups and community-based participatory research team) to guide the development of a culturally informed health promotion program to improve glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s. The NGT process identified a comprehensive set of barriers and facilitators related to glaucoma medication adherence experienced by AA’s with glaucoma. There are several advantages to this approach. First, the use of the NGT involved direct consumers/stakeholders (i.e., AA’s patients with glaucoma) in the research process that is particularly valuable in the early phase of program development. AA patients had the opportunity to voice issues that were most important to them. The focus on consumers also minimized bias and assumptions from researchers and clinicians. A second advantage is that the weight of each member’s opinion in their rank-ordering votes is the same and that process loss is less likely to occur. Third, the NGT provides a fairly rapid means of eliciting community input with relatively low burden. Furthermore, the highly structured format and deliberate avoidance of interference or interpretation from a facilitator does not interfere with or influence the group members in contrast to structured clinical interviews or other types of unstructured focus group procedures which require rater interpretation that can bias coding themes/comments. The NGT allows practitioners and researchers to see a list of issues or recommendations in prioritized areas based on patient consumer rank-ordering votes.
While several of the barriers related to glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s were similar to those reported in previous studies conducted with predominantly Caucasian populations, a community-based participatory research team further helped the research team to recognize the unique cultural experiences and perspectives of AA’s regarding medication adherence and glaucoma and to provide feedback on the content development and presentation of the program materials for AA’s. Additionally, the team helped to identify potential logistic concerns (i.e., method of delivery of program) for consideration in the development of the program, GOAL. While such practical concerns are important to the success of a health promotion program,28 also important is the perspective of the program approach and how it is framed relative to AA patient experiences.
The CBAB recommendation for the selection of an empowerment-based theoretical framework focusing on the principles of PST and MI combined with glaucoma management education may help facilitate patients’ readiness to change health behaviors (i.e., glaucoma medication adherence) and to learn skills such as problem-solving in order to more systematically tackle problems related to medication management. PST approaches stipulate that individuals differ in their (1) cognitive-behavioral skills that influence the processing of information about their health problems, (2) ability to regulate emotional experiences when problem solving health problems, and (3) ability to implement effective strategies for resolving health-related problems.51 PST has been shown to lead to positive health behaviors and adjustment among persons with health-related problems52–56 and has also been found to be well-received among AA’s when culturally relevant.55,57 Elements of a positive problem orientation, the motivational component, function to promote personal confidence, self-efficacy, positive moods, and a sense of self-confidence in stressful situations. MI techniques can help enhance a person’s problem orientation as the techniques are designed to prepare persons for change by 1) examining readiness to change health behaviors, 2) understanding ambivalence about change, 3) identifying perceived barriers to goals, and 4) making a commitment to change health behaviors.
The information obtained from this qualitative study can also help guide doctor-patient interactions. For example, eye care providers can use this information to 1) direct more meaningful conversations with AA patients regarding glaucoma medication management education, 2) assess potential barriers, and 3) identify strategies to overcome or prevent such obstacles. Given that the barriers in this study ranged in terms of complexity along with the fact that successful behavior change requires both motivation as well as training in new skills over time, eye care providers should also consider referring patients with complicated histories or failed prior attempts to manage glaucoma medications to health care providers with specialized training in behavioral health interventions (i.e., clinical psychologists; rehabilitation/health psychologists). Incorporation of these types of health educators as part of multidisciplinary eye healthcare teams is warranted for prevention efforts, treatment, and/or consultation, particularly in busy clinics where eye care providers may not have the additional time to adequately provide detailed health education regarding glaucoma and/or have the appropriate training needed to successfully deliver such programs. This may be particularly important when other neurocognitive or psychiatric problems may be also influencing medication adherence (i.e., depression, dementia, substance abuse, family problems, personality disorders).
While the implications from this study are promising for eliminating glaucoma medication adherence health disparities, the results of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the composition and representativeness of participants may limit the generalizability of findings. The majority of participants were representative of the southeastern region who were seeking glaucoma services from a university based medical center. A second limitation is related to the NGT technique itself that restricts the discussion to a single topic, and may not allow further elaboration of other ideas. However, we also formed a community-based participatory research team so that we could obtain a richer understanding of the cultural perspectives of this patient population. Lastly, the findings examined barriers and facilitators related solely to AA’s experiences with glaucoma medication management. Thus, we did not investigate comparisons between other racial/ethnic groups as this study was purposefully designed to follow-up to our previous research demonstrating a health disparity in glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s11 and to identify targets to guide the development of a health promotion intervention tailored to AA’s experiences. However, future studies examining barriers and facilitators among other racial groups are warranted to determine potential differences and/or prioritization.
Despite these limitations, the NGT and input from a consumer-based participatory advisory team are valuable approaches used to uncover general and context-specific priorities in health research, particularly to guide program development in formative phases.28 The current study offers such insights as voiced from the direct experiences of AA’s patients themselves in terms of their glaucoma medication management. Our next step in building upon this formative research is to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of this health promotion program, GOAL, for improving glaucoma medication adherence among AA’s.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by grant funding from the National Aging Institute (RCMAR #P30 AG031054), National Eye Institute (#K23 EY017327-01, Dreer PI), the EyeSight Foundation of Alabama (ESFA, Dreer PI; Girkin, PI; Owsley PI), the Research to Prevent Blindness (RPB; Dreer PI; Girkin PI; Owsley PI), and the Able Trust (Owsley PI).
REFERENCES
- 1.Friedman DS, Wilson MR, Liebmann JM, Fechtner RD, Weinreb RN. An evidence-based assessment of risk factors for the progression of ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:S19–S31. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262–267. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.081224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schmier JK, Covert DW, Robin AL. First-year treatment patterns among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:851–858. doi: 10.1185/03007990902791132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Friedman DS, Jampel HD, Munoz B, West SK. The prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among blacks and whites 73 years and older: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Glaucoma Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:1625–1630. doi: 10.1001/archopht.124.11.1625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Girkin CA. Primary open-angle glaucoma in African Americans. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2004;44:43–60. doi: 10.1097/00004397-200404420-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Witt K, Katz J, Royall RM. Blindness and visual impairment in an American urban population. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:286–290. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1990.01070040138048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Javitt JC, McBean AM, Nicholson GA, Babish JD, Warren JL, Krakauer H. Undertreatment of glaucoma among black Americans. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1418–1422. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199111143252005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wilensky J, Fiscella RG, Carlson AM, Morris LS, Walt J. Measurement of persistence and adherence to regimens of IOP-lowering glaucoma medications using pharmacy claims data. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:S28–S33. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK, 2nd, Wilson MR, Gordon MO. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:701–713. doi: 10.1001/archopht.120.6.701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Hussein M. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268–1279. doi: 10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Dreer LE, Girkin C, Mansberger SL. Determinants of medication adherence to topical glaucoma therapy. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:234–240. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31821dac86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nordstrom BL, Friedman DS, Mozaffari E, Quigley HA, Walker AM. Persistence and adherence with topical glaucoma therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:598–606. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.04.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Olthoff CM, Schouten JS, van de Borne BW, Webers CA. Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:953–961. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.12.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Quigley HA, Friedman DS, Hahn SR. Evaluation of practice patterns for the care of open-angle glaucoma compared with claims data: the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1599–1606. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Schmier JK, Covert DW, Robin AL. Estimated first-year costs of prostaglandin analogs with/without adjunctive therapy for glaucoma management: a United States perspective. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:2867–2875. doi: 10.1185/030079907x233287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Taylor SA, Galbraith SM, Mills RP. Causes of non-compliance with drug regimens in glaucoma patients: a qualitative study. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2002;18:401–409. doi: 10.1089/10807680260362687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lacey J, Cate H, Broadway DC. Barriers to adherence with glaucoma medications: a qualitative research study. Eye (Lond) 2009;23:924–932. doi: 10.1038/eye.2008.103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Abrums M. Faith and feminism: how African American women from a storefront church resist oppression in healthcare. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2004;27:187–201. doi: 10.1097/00012272-200407000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Griffith DM, Johnson J, Ellis KR, Schulz AJ. Cultural context and a critical approach to eliminating health disparities. Ethn Dis. 2010;20:71–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Valentine JA. Impact of attitudes and beliefs regarding African American sexual behavior on STD prevention and control in African American communities: unintended consequences. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35:S23–S29. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31818d3cc7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Windsor LC, Benoit E, Dunlap E. Dimensions of oppression in the lives of impoverished black women who use drugs. J Black Stud. 2010;41:21–39. doi: 10.1177/0021934708326875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Scollan-Koliopoulos M, Rapp KJ, 3rd, Bleich D. Afrocentric cultural values and beliefs: movement beyond the race and ethnicity proxy to understand views of diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2012;38:488–498. doi: 10.1177/0145721712445213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tang TS, Funnell MM, Brown MB, Kurlander JE. Self-management support in “real-world” settings: an empowerment-based intervention. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79:178–184. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Funnell MM, Nwankwo R, Gillard ML, Anderson RM, Tang TS. Implementing an empowerment-based diabetes self-management education program. Diabetes Educ. 2005;31:53, 5–6, 61. doi: 10.1177/0145721704273166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cox CB. Empowering African American custodial grandparents. Soc Work. 2002;47:45–54. doi: 10.1093/sw/47.1.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gutierrez LM. Working with women of color: an empowerment perspective. Soc Work. 1990;35:149–153. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Airhihenbuwa CO, Lowe AG. Improving the health status of African Americans: empowerment as heatlh education intervention. In: Livingston I, editor. Handbook of Black American Health: The mosaic of conditions, issues, policies, and prospects. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1994. pp. 387–398. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Zunker C, Cox TL, Wingo BC, Knight B, Jefferson WK, Ard JD. Using formative research to develop a worksite health promotion program for African American women. Women Health. 2008;48:189–207. doi: 10.1080/03630240802313514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Malpede CZ, Greene LE, Fitzpatrick SL, Jefferson WK, Shewchuk RM, Baskin ML, Ard JD. Racial influences associated with weight-related beliefs in African American and Caucasian women. Ethn Dis. 2007;17:1–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cook PF, Bremer RW, Ayala AJ, Kahook MY. Feasibility of motivational interviewing delivered by a glaucoma educator to improve medication adherence. Clin Ophthalmol. 2010;4:1091–1101. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S12765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Glanz K, Beck AD, Bundy L, Primo S, Lynn MJ, Cleveland J, Wold JA, Echt KV. Impact of a health communication intervention to improve glaucoma treatment adherence. Results of the interactive study to increase glaucoma adherence to treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:1252–1258. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.1607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Okeke CO, Quigley HA, Jampel HD, Ying GS, Plyler RJ, Jiang Y, Friedman DS. Interventions improve poor adherence with once daily glaucoma medications in electronically monitored patients. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2286–2293. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.05.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Cate H, Bhattacharya D, Clark A, Fordham R, Notley C, Broadway DC. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to estimate the effects and costs of a patient centred educational intervention in glaucoma management. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:57. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-12-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Shacter HE, Shea JA, Akhabue E, Sablani N, Long JA. A qualitative evaluation of racial disparities in glucose control. Ethn Dis. 2009;19:121–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Annang L, Hannon L, 3rd, Fletcher FE, Horn WS, Cornish D. Using nominal technique to inform a sexual health program for black youth. Am J Health Behav. 2011;35:664–673. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.6.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Coyne KS, Margolis MK, Kennedy-Martin T, Baker TM, Klein R, Paul MD, Revicki DA. The impact of diabetic retinopathy: perspectives from patient focus groups. Fam Pract. 2004;21:447–453. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Owsley C, McGwin G, Scilley K, Dreer LE, Bray CR, Mason JO. Focus groups with persons who have age-related macular degeneration: Emotional issues. Rehabil Psychol. 2006;51:23–29. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Owsley C, McGwin G, Scilley K, Girkin CA, Phillips JM, Searcey K. Perceived barriers to care and attitudes about vision and eye care: focus groups with older African Americans and eye care providers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2797–2802. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-0107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Elliott TR, Shewchuk RM. Using the nominal group technique to identify the problems experienced by persons living with severe physical disabilities. J Clin Psychol Med S. 2002;9:65–76. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Larkins BM, Worrall LE, Hickson LM. Stakeholder opinion of functional communication activities following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2004;18:691–706. doi: 10.1080/02699050310001617389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Sanderson T, Hewlett S, Richards P, Morris M, Calnan M. Utilizing qualitative data from nominal groups: exploring the influences on treatment outcome prioritization with rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Health Psychol. 2012;17:132–142. doi: 10.1177/1359105311410758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Guftason DH. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman; 1975. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Allen J, Dyas J, Jones M. Building consensus in health care: a guide to using the nominal group technique. Br J Community Nurs. 2004;9:110–114. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2004.9.3.12432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Jefferson WK, Zunker C, Feucht JC, Fitzpatrick SL, Greene LF, Shewchuk RM, Baskin ML, Walton NW, Phillips B, Ard JD. Use of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to understand the perceptions of the healthiness of foods associated with African Americans. Eval Program Plann. 2010;33:343–348. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Lees E, Taylor WC, Hepworth JT, Feliz K, Cassells A, Tobin JN. Environmental changes to increase physical activity: perceptions of older urban ethnic-minority women. J Aging Phys Act. 2007;15:425–438. doi: 10.1123/japa.15.4.425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, Cohen S, Myerson S, Iliffe S. Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Fam Pract. 2007;24:454–460. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Pena A, Estrada CA, Soniat D, Taylor B, Burton M. Nominal group technique: a brainstorming tool for identifying areas to improve pain management in hospitalized patients. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:416–420. doi: 10.1002/jhm.1900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Festinger L, Katz D. Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1966. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hill-Briggs F, Cooper DC, Loman K, Brancati FL, Cooper LA. A qualitative study of problem solving and diabetes control in type 2 diabetes self-management. Diabetes Educ. 2003;29:1018–1028. doi: 10.1177/014572170302900612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Utz SW, Williams IC, Jones R, Hinton I, Alexander G, Yan G, Moore C, Blankenship J, Steeves R, Oliver MN. Culturally tailored intervention for rural African Americans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2008;34:854–865. doi: 10.1177/0145721708323642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.D’Zurilla T, Nezu A. A Problem-Solving Therapy. New York: Springer; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Dreer LE, Berry J, Rivera P, Snow M, Elliott TR, Miller D, Little TD. Efficient assessment of social problem-solving abilities in medical and rehabilitation settings: a Rasch analysis of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65:653–669. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Dreer LE, Elliott TR, Tucker E. Social problem-solving abilities and health behaviors among persons with recent-onset spinal cord Injury. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2004;11:7–13. doi: 10.1023/B:JOCS.0000016265.62022.82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Dreer LE, Elliott TR, Fletcher DC, Swanson M. Social problem-solving abilities and psychological adjustment of persons in low vision rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;50:232–238. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Hill-Briggs F, Gary TL, Yeh HC, Batts-Turner M, Powe NR, Saudek CD, Brancati FL. Association of social problem solving with glycemic control in a sample of urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes. J Behav Med. 2006;29:69–78. doi: 10.1007/s10865-005-9037-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Elliott TR, Grant JS, Miller DM. Social problem solving abilities and behavioral health. In: Chang E, D'Zurilla T, Sanna LJ, editors. Social Problem Solving: Theory, Research, and Training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004. pp. 117–134. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kasckow J, Brown C, Morse JQ, Karpov I, Bensasi S, Thomas SB, Ford A, Reynolds C. Racial preferences for participation in a depression prevention trial involving problem-solving therapy. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:722–724. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.61.7.722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]