Reducing Diabetes in the African American Community Through Health Education
This paper reviews and compares two studies addressing diabetes prevention and disparities in the United States. The first, by Kanaya et al. (2012), evaluates the Live Well, Be Well program, a telephone-based lifestyle counseling intervention targeting low-income, ethnic minority adults in northern California. The second, by Gaskin et al. (2014), analyzes national data to identify racial and socioeconomic disparities in diabetes incidence and prevalence. The paper contrasts their methodologies, summarizes their findings, and reflects on how both studies inform a public health intervention and policy project focused on decreasing diabetes in the African American community through health education.
- Overview of Key Studies: Summaries of Kanaya and Gaskin study methods and findings
- Comparing and Contrasting the Studies: Methodological and thematic differences between both studies
- Telephone Counseling as a Public Health Intervention: Effectiveness of telephone counseling for diabetes management
- Race, Poverty, and Diabetes Disparities: How race and poverty influence diabetes risk
- Implications for Public Health Policy: Policy recommendations targeting at-risk populations
- Conclusion: Synthesis of study contributions to health education
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly distinguishes between two methodologically different study designs — a controlled intervention experiment versus a secondary data analysis — and explains the implications of each approach for interpreting findings.
- It consistently connects external research back to the student's own policy project topic, demonstrating applied critical thinking rather than simple summarization.
- Limitations of both studies are identified and discussed with nuance, including considerations of intersectionality, social constructs of race, and confounding variables in poverty research.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates comparative literature review skills by placing two studies in dialogue with each other. The author evaluates not only what each study found, but how differences in methodology (experimental vs. observational) affect the strength and generalizability of the findings, a critical analytical move for graduate-level public health writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with individual overviews of each article, covering methodology, findings, strengths, and limitations. It then directly compares the two studies on methodological and thematic grounds. The final section synthesizes both studies in relation to the author's own public health policy project on diabetes in the African American community, culminating in policy recommendations. References follow APA style.
Overview of Key Studies
The article by Kanaya et al. (2012) focused on a controlled experiment involving 230 participants over the course of one year, with 6-month and 12-month outcomes measured to determine differences between the control group and the intervention group. The methodology consisted of an intervention group that received individualized lifestyle counseling delivered primarily via telephone by health department counselors, while the control group was simply wait-listed. Data collection was achieved through several clinics, and study staff were blinded to remove or prevent bias.
Overall, the researchers found that the Live Well, Be Well program was highly effective in reducing diabetes risk factors among its participants. In particular, the program succeeded in helping participants lose weight and improve their diets. It demonstrated that telephone counseling can be an effective way to help reduce the risk of diabetes in lower-income communities.
The sample size was sufficiently suitable for a study of this scale. Individuals were selected based on specific health conditions, and participants were recruited from four distinct low-income neighborhoods in northern California cities: Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond. The authors note that "recruitment began with community-based, educational outreach to identify individuals at risk for diabetes" (Kanaya et al., 2012, p. 1551).
One strength of a study like this is that it provides a clear way to compare the two groups. This comparison can be very informative, particularly when the two groups are similar in other respects. Another strength is that it can be relatively straightforward to implement. However, there are also some weaknesses to this approach. One weakness is that it may not be possible to find a truly comparable group of subjects. Another weakness is that the interventions may not be administered in exactly the same way to each group, which could affect the results. Overall, the controlled experiment is a valuable tool for researchers, but it is important to remain mindful of its limitations.
The article by Gaskin et al. (2014) examines disparities in diabetes incidence and prevalence among different groups of people in the United States. The authors note that while the overall incidence of diabetes has been increasing in recent years, there are significant disparities among different populations. For example, they found that the incidence of diabetes is significantly higher among African Americans than among whites. In addition, they found that the incidence of diabetes is significantly higher among people living in poverty than among those who are not.
The authors used a variety of methodological approaches to examine these disparities. First, they used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine trends in diabetes incidence and prevalence over time. Second, they used NHANES data to examine differences in diabetes incidence and prevalence between different population groups. Third, they used data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) as a resource for reviewing the data in a manner that preserved participant privacy.
The authors found that there are significant disparities in diabetes incidence and prevalence between different groups in the United States. They also found that these disparities are largely explained by differences in race, poverty status, and place of residence. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing diabetes disparities should focus on these key factors.
As the study finds, race and poverty are two of the most commonly cited factors in health disparities. Minorities and low-income individuals are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, and that is a central strength of this study. However, it is also important to consider the limitations of this approach. First, it could be argued that race is a social construct with no strict biological basis, meaning that different groups may be disproportionately affected by health problems for reasons unrelated to their genetic makeup. Second, poverty is often associated with a number of other factors — such as poor nutrition, limited access to healthcare, family dynamics, and educational background — suggesting that an issue of intersectionality may be at play. As a result, it can be difficult to isolate the impact of poverty on health outcomes. Finally, this approach does not fully account for the individual experiences of people across all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Everyone has a unique set of circumstances that contributes to their overall health, and no single factor can fully explain the complex issue of health disparities.
References
Gaskin, D. J., Thorpe Jr, R. J., McGinty, E. E., Bower, K., Rohde, C., Young, J. H., & Dubay, L. (2014). Disparities in diabetes: the nexus of race, poverty, and place. American Journal of Public Health, 104(11), 2147–2155.
Kanaya, A. M., Santoyo-Olsson, J., Gregorich, S., Grossman, M., Moore, T., & Stewart, A. L. (2012). The Live Well, Be Well study: a community-based, translational lifestyle program to lower diabetes risk factors in ethnic minority and lower-socioeconomic status adults. American Journal of Public Health, 102(8), 1551–1558.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.